Recent Successes

R. vs. A.W. - Castlegar Provincial Court

Tuesday March 7, 2017

Charge: Possession of Controlled Substance (x5).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest tp prosecute our client who was found in posession of marijuana, MDA, LSD, MDMA and psilocybin mushrooms.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program and to stay all charges upon our client successfully completing the program.


R. vs E.S. - Kelowna Provincial Court

Wednesday February 15, 2017

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (MDMA).
Issue: Whether police had breached our client's Charter rights when they arrested and searched him based solely on a complaint from a "concerned citizen".
Result: Mr. Mines provided Crown Counsel with an outline of his legal arguments and, on the eve of the trial, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.


R. vs. D.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday January 26, 2017

Charge: Possession of Cocaine.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown into allowing our client into the Alternative Measures Program. Upon completion, the Court dismissed the charge against our client. No criminal record.


R. vs. Y.C. - Coquitlam RCMP Investigation

Wednesday November 30, 2016

Charge: Production of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether police conducted a legal search of the residence that yielded over 100 growing cannabis plants and whether our client had knowledge and control of the operation.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to steer our client through the investigation that concluded with no charges being recommended. No criminal record.


R. vs. D. H. - Surrey Provincial Court

Thursday November 3, 2016

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (x5).
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that our client had knowledge and control of the drugs in this "dial-a-dope/ buy and bust" case
Result: After a two day trial, the Court agreed with Mr. Mines' submisssions and found ourt client not guilty on all 5 drug counts. 


R. vs. C.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday July 14, 2016

Charge: Possession of a controlled substance (cocaine).
Issue: Whether our client would be convicted of the charge.
Result: Contrary to Crown Counsel's sentencing position, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client an Absolute Discharge. No permanent criminal record.


R. vs. B.S. and S.T. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday July 14, 2016

Charge: Possession of a Controlled Substance (cocaine).
Issue: Whether our clients would have convictions registered against them.
Result: Contrary to Crown counsel's sentencing position, the court, after considering Mr. Mines' submissions, granted both of our clients Absolute Discharges. No permanent record.


R. vs. J.T. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday May 19, 2016

Charge: Possession of Cocaine.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide evidence and submissions to the court which resulted in the court granting an an absolute discharge. No criminal conviction.


R. vs. O.E. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday March 10, 2016

Charge: Posession of a Controlled Substance (x2).
Issue: Whether the rehabilitative steps our client had taken would result in the Court granting him a discharge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on our client's behalf, the Court granted him an absolute discharge. No criminal record.


R. vs. J.B. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday December 10, 2015

Charge: Possession of Cocaine.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client had control over the drugs  that were located near him.
Result: Upon considering our representations, Crown counsel concluded that there was insufficient evidence against our client and declined to approve a charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. K.B. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday May 20, 2015

Charge: Possession of Marijuana.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution where our client was charged with possession of 5.5 ounces of marijuana.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program. Upon competion, the Court dismissed the charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. K.B. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday February 18, 2015

Charge: Possession of a controlled substance.
Issue: Whether the marijuhana was possesed for the purpose of trafficking or was for personal use.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown that the 5 ounces of marijuhana was for personal use and, given our client's circumstances, to allow him into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.


R. vs. C.H. - Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Tuesday May 20, 2014

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether the police actions amounted to an unlawful search and seizure in this "dial-a-dope" case.
Result: We were able to steer our client through the investigation. Ultimately, after considering Mr. Johnson's representations, the police agreed there were problems with the search and forwarded no charges to Crown. No criminal record.


R. vs. J.L. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday April 10, 2014

Charges: Trafficking Marijuana.
Issue: Whether all of the evidence gathered during this extensive police investigation would be admissible against our client who was alleged to be trafficking at the pound level.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to abandon roughly half of its case due Charter breaches. After hearing our submissions, the Court granted our client a 6 month Conditional Sentence. No jail.


R. vs. K.C. - Salmon Arm Provincial Court

Monday December 9, 2013

Charges: Production of Marijuana; PPT Marijuana and MDMA.
Issue: Whether the search warrant was valid; whether our client had standind to challenge the search; whether Crown could prove our client had control over the 1500 plant grow operation and the MDMA.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown that their case was flawed. Complete stay of proceedings prior to the second day of the trial. No criminal record.


R. vs. K.A. - Coquitlam RCMP Investigation

Sunday October 13, 2013

Charge: Possession of Controlled Drugs.
Issue: Whether the police could establish that the substance was a controlled "diet" drug.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investgation without any charge being recommended.


R. vs. A.P. - Surrey Provincial Court

Thursday July 25, 2013

Charge: Trafficking (marijuana).
Issue: Whether police conducted a lawful search.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade crown that the police conduct amounted to enratapment. No charge approved.


R. vs. C.C. - Richmond Provincial Court

Tuesday June 18, 2013

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (marijuana).
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to the jail sentence that was sought by the Crown.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.


R. vs. K.L. and M.B. - Jasper Provincial Court

Thursday February 28, 2013

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (suspected MDMA).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, the drugs were possessed for the purpose of trafficking.
Result: The drugs analyzed showing only a trace amount of a controlled substance. Mr. Mines persuaded Crown that the other evidence fell short of proving an intent to traffick. The Crown withdrew the PPT charges and agreed to resolve the matter with a plea to a single count of simple possession of marijuana. The court imposed a $200 fine.


R. vs. G.B. - Surrey Provincial Court

Wednesday January 16, 2013

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Marijuana).
Issue: Whether the vehicle stop and search were lawful.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown that his client's Charter rights were breached. Stay of Proceedings prior to Trial. No criminal record.


R. vs. J.P. - New Westminster Supreme Court

Monday November 19, 2012

Charges: Production; Posession for the Purpose of trafficking (Marijuana).
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client was the principle operator of the 1000 plant grow operation.
Result: After persuading Crown that his client was merely an enabler, and not the main individual resposnsible for the grow operation, the court accepted a joint submission for a conditional sentence. No jail.


R. vs. Z.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday November 5, 2012

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of trafficking (Marijuana).
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client had knowledge of the bulk marijuana in the trunk of the vehicle he was driving.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge agreed that there was no evidence on which a conviction could be based. Charge dismissed. No criminal record.


R. vs. D.L. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday September 26, 2012

Charges: Trafficking (Marijuana).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the court to grant a conditional discharge in a trafficking case.
Result: The trial judge accepted Mr. Mansoori-Dara's submission that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to grant a conditional discharge without probation. No conviction.


R. vs. D.P. - Squamish RCMP Investigation

Friday September 7, 2012

Charges: Possesstion for the Purpose of Trafficking (Marijuana, MDMA, LSD).
Issue: Whether police conducted a lawful search of Mr. Mines client's vehicle.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through the investigation which resulted in police deciding not to recommend that any charges be approved.


R. vs. A.M. - Richmond Provincial Court

Friday December 30, 2011

Charges: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Cocaine & Marijuana).
Issue: Whether the police conducted a lawful arrest and search of the vehicle in this "dial-a-dope" case.
Result: On the second day of trial, Mr. Mines made successful application to have the drug evidence (worth approximately $15,000) excluded on the basis that the search was unlawful. All charges dismissed. No criminal record.

R. vs. D. Z. - Vancouver Youth Court

December 1, 2011

Charge: Possession of Marijuana.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown to allow his client into the Alternative Measures program. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 13, 2011

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (cocaine).
Issue: Whether the police had lawful grounds to arrest and search Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client in this "dial-a-dope" case.
Result: On the 4th day of trial , Mr. Mansoori-Dara made a successful application to the trial judge which resulted in exclusion of the drug evidence and dismissal of all charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.B. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

June 22, 2011

Charge: Possession of Marijuana.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown Counsel to resolve this matter by way of Alternative Measures. Upon completion of the program, the court dismissed the charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. W.G. - Nanaimo Provincial Court

May 02, 2011

Charge: Production / PPT Marijuana - Return of Seized Money.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that $2000 seized by police from Mr. Mines' client was proceeds of crime.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to return the funds to his client.

R. vs. W. G. - Nanaimo Provincial Court

February 09, 2011

Charge: Production; PPT Marijuana (over 3 kg).
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that Mr. Mines' client was a party to producing marijuana with respect to approximately 200 plants.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed only on the lesser offence of PPT less than 3 kg. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his clients' behalf, the court granted Mr. Mines' client a 9 month Conditional Sentence Order and declined to impose the condition sought by the Crown - that Mr. Mines' client be prohibited from possessing hydroponic growing equipment.

R. vs. D.F. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 21, 2010

Charge: Production of Marijuana; PPT Marijuana.
Issue: Whether the police search of this 250 plant grow operation was lawful, and whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client had knowledge and control over the operation.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. R. S. - Abbottsford Provincial Court

September 27, 2010

Charge: Production; PPT Marijuana.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was guilty of producing marijuana and whether he was in possession in excess of 1000 plants.
Result: As a result of lengthy negotiations, Mr. Mines persuaded Crown that his client was only responsible for 63 "clones".
Guilty plea only to PPT Under 3 Kgs. Crown originally sought a 12 month jail sentence. The trial judge granted Mr Mines' client a 3 month Conditional Sentence. No jail.

R. vs. S.M. - Williams Lake Supreme Court

May 21, 2010

Charge: Production of Marijuana; Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Marijuana).
Issue: Whether police breached Mr. Mines' clients' Charter rights prior to obtaining a confession from him with respect to his involvement in a 5,000 plant grow-operation.
Result: On the 5th day of trial, after Mr. Mines had vigorously cross-examined police witnesses, Crown Counsel offered a satisfactory resolution by way of plea bargain. The Crown had originally sought a two year jail sentence, but significantly downgraded its position to a 12 month Conditional Sentence Order with no house arrest, no electronic monitoring and no probation.

R. vs. R.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 29, 2010

Charge: Production of Marijuana; PPT Marijuana.
Issue: Whether the marijuana plants were produced for a commercial purpose or were for personal use.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the trial judge agreed that the marijuana was for personal use. Suspended Sentence. No jail.

R. vs. G.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 01, 2010

Charge: Possession for the purpose of Trafficking ( Ecstasy & Marijuana)
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, the drugs could have been possessed for personal use.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel downgraded the charge to simple possession. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the judge granted his client a Conditional Discharge rather than the jail sentence originally sought.

R. vs. J. L. - Richmond Provincial Court

March 25, 2010

Charge: Trafficking (Cocaine).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of a "dial-a-dope" scheme, Mr. Mines' client would receive a jail sentence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a 9 month Conditional Sentence. No jail.

R. vs. J.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 04, 2010

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Marijuana).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the judge granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Sentence. No jail.

R. vs. N.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 14, 2009

Charge: Production of Marijuana; Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether Crown Counsel could prove that Mr. Mines' client had control over the grow operation.
Result: Mr. Mines made representations resulting in Crown staying all charges prior to trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 18, 2009

Charge: Unlawful Possession of Tobacco ( Excise Act.)
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client was a party to the unlawful possession of eleven cases of cigarettes.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to guide his client through a police investigation that resulted in Crown Counsel entering a Stay of Proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.M.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 15, 2009

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (cocaine and heroin).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail in this "dial-a-dope" case.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge agreed that a Conditional Sentence was appropriate. Mr. Mines' client was allowed to serve the sentence in the community. No jail.

R. vs. A.C. - New Westminster Provincial Court

May 06, 2009

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (cocaine).
Issue: Whether jail was the appropriate sentence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge agreed that jail was not necessary and placed his client on Probation.

R. vs. M. H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 08, 2009

Charge: Trafficking.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.S.E. - Richmond Provincial Court

April 07, 2009

Charge: Trafficking (cocaine).
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client was a party to the offence.
Result: Not Guilty. The trial judge agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that his client was not aware of the drug transaction that occurred in the back of his car. Charge dismissed.

R. vs. J.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 24, 2009

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Cocaine, Ecstasy, Heroin, Marijuana) x 2.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines client would be sentenced to jail for these "dial a dope" offences.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that one of the offences involved an illegal search which resulted in Crown entering a stay of proceedings. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on the remaining charge, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Sentence to be served in the community. No jail.

R. vs. C. H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 29, 2008

Charge: Possession of Cocaine; Obstruct Police.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of the arrest, Mr. Mines' client's Charter rights were violated.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that the arrest was unlawful. In the result the Crown withdrew both charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. N.M. - Richmond Provincial Court

September 16, 2008

Charge: Trafficking Cocaine.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be sentenced to jail.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions in this "dial-a-dope" case, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Sentence to be served in the community. No jail.

R. vs. C.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

September 12, 2008

Charge: Production of a Controlled Substance (Marijuana).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be sentenced to jail.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Sentence to be served in the community. No jail.

R. vs. V. Y. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 28, 2008

Charge: Trafficking; PPT (Ecstasy).
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for the Court to sentence Mr. Mines' client to jail.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel not to rely on a portion of the drug evidence that was improperly seized and, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court imposed a community based sentence.

R. vs. S.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 23, 2008

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Ecstasy)
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client's Charter rights were breached upon being searched and whether Crown would be granted an adjournment when a police witness did not attend the trial.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines submissions, the trial judge declined to grant the adjournment and Crown Counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D. D, - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 12, 2008

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Marijuana).
Issue: Whether the police had legal authority to arrest and search Mr. Mines' client.
Result: Not Guilty. Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge that his client's Charter rights were violated. The evidence obtained from the illegal search was excluded.

R. vs. C. W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 13, 2007

Charge: Trafficking (Ecstasy).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of Mr. Mines' client, it was in the public interest to proceed.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program and after his client satisfied the conditions Crown withdrew the charge.

R. vs. B.L.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 12, 2007

Charge: Production of Marijuana; Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether the search warrant was valid.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge agreed that the warrant had been issued on the basis of misleading information. The search warrant was set aside, the evidence of the grow operation was excluded, and Mr. Mines' client was therefore able to avoid conviction and forfeiture of his residence to the Crown.

R. vs. H.B.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 14, 2007

Charge: Possession of Cocaine; Possession of a Prohibited Weapon.
Issue: Whether the police search, incidental to an investigative detention, was lawful.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions the trial judge ruled that the search was unlawful. He excluded the drug and weapon evidence and dismissed both charges.

R. vs. K.L.H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 28, 2006

Charge: Production of a Controlled Substance; Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether police had reasonable grounds to search the dwelling; Whether the substance (cocaine) was necessarily possessed for trafficking.
Result: After submissions by Mr. Mines, the Crown withdrew the charge and proceeded on the lesser charge of simple possession. Mr. Mines' client was sentenced to a fine (the Crown had originally sought 6 months jail) and a large amount of cash was returned to Mr. Mines' client.

R. vs. D.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 10, 2006

Charge: Possession of a Controlled Substance.
Issue: Whether police had reasonable grounds to search Mr. Mines' client.
Result: Not Guilty. The drug evidence was not admitted due to an illegal search by police.

R. v. C.R. - New Westminster Provincial Court

September 20, 2006

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client had knowledge of the drugs found in the car he was driving.
Result: Crown Counsel withdrew the charge prior to trial.

R. vs. M.B. - Vancouver Supreme Court

May 23, 2006

Charge: Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines client had knowledge of the contents of a sports bag that he delivered to his co-accused's car for the purpose of delivering to a Vancouver Cafe that was openly selling marijuana.
Result: Not Guilty. (7 day jury trial)

R. vs. M.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 19, 2006

Charge: Possession of Cocaine.
Issue: Whether the automobile search of Mr. Mines' client was lawful.
Result: After Mr. Mines' consultations and negotiations with Crown Counsel, no charge was approved.

R. vs. L.F. and J.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 09, 2006

Charge: Possession of Marijuana.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of the arrest, it was in the public interest to proceed with charges.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown Counsel withdrew charges against both of Mr. Mines' clients.

R. vs. J.R. - Nanaimo Provincial Court

December 13, 2005

Charge: Possession of a Controlled Substance (1 lb. marijuana).
Issue: Would the judge accede to the Crown's submission to convict Mr. Mines' client?
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the judge granted Mr. Mines' client a discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. S.H.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 14, 2005

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Cocaine).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, the police conducted a lawful search.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge ruled that the police search was unlawful and refused to admit the drugs into evidence.

R. vs. M.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 26, 2005

Charge: Trafficking Marijuana.
Issue: Whether the judge would accede to Crown's request for a jail sentence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted Mr. Mines' client a 6 month Suspended Sentence with no community supervision required.

R. vs. C.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 14, 2004

Charge: Exporting/Possessing Methamphetamine for the Purpose Of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether Mr.Mines' client would be sentenced to jail for arranging to sell over $30,000 worth of "ecstasy" tablets to U.S. undercover agents.
Result: After extensive negotiations with Crown, and after making submissions to the Court, Mr. Mines was able to obtain a 9 month Conditional Sentence Order for his client.


R. vs. P.X. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Friday May 12, 2017

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge as laid.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a licence. Rather than being sentenced to the mandatory minimum 12 month driving prohibition, our client received a $250 fine. No driving prohibition.


R. vs. K.S. - Vancouver Police Investigation

Thursday April 27, 2017

Charge: Hit and Run.
Issue: Whether our client would be charged with a Criminal Code offence and whether ICBC would breach his insurance policy as a result of his actions.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade police to issue our client a Motor Vehicle Act violation ticket rather than proceed with criminal charges. Mr. Mines was then able to steer our client through an ICBC investigastigation which concluded without ICBC finding him in breach of his insurance policy, saving him in the range of $10,000.


R. vs. D.C. - Vancouver Traffic Court

Monday April 24, 2017

Charge: Speeding; Driving without Reasonable Consideration.
Issue: Whether our client had a lawful excuse for driving in the manner he did.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to present medical evidence to the police officer who agreed to drop the Driving without Reasonable Consideration charge and to proceed against our client as the registered owner rather than the driver. Our client was sentenced to a fine but received no driving demerit points rather than the 9 points he was originally facing.


E.S. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Thursday April 20, 2017

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police officer had reasonable grounds to demand the breath sample that our client refused to provide.
Result: The adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submissions that the officer did not have objectively reasonable grounds to make the demand and, accordingly, found that our client was entitled to refuse providing the breath sample. The 90 day driving prohibition and 30 vehicle impoundment were revoked and our client was permitted to resume driving.


R. vs. N.N. - Vancouver provincial Court

Monday January 23, 2017

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this prosecution which carries a minimum mandatory 12 month driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Johnson persuaded Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a driver's licence. Our client received a $400 fine and a 4 month driving prohibition.


A.K. vs. Superintendent of British Columbia

Thursday January 19, 2017

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP).
Issue: Whether the investigating officer could prove that our client had care or control of the parked vehicle he was found sleeping in.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to successfuly persuade the adjudicator that our client was not a "driver" within the Motor Vehicle Act definition. Our client's driving prohibition was overturned, his car was released and all fees were returned, allowing him to resume driving.


R. vs. T.X. - Richmond RCMP Invesigation

Tuesday January 3, 2017

Charge: Failing to Remain at the Scene of an Accident.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for police to charge our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the investigation without our client incriminating himself. No charges were recommended. 


R.M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the investgating officer could prove that our client was a "driver" within the Motor Vehicle Act, and whether our client refused a lawful breath demand.
Result: Driving prohibition revoked. After conidering Mr. Mines' submissions, the adjudicator concluded that our client was not a "driver" within the MVA definition. All fees refunded to our client. Our client was permitted to resume driving. No conviction. No record.

 


R. vs. J.S. - Richmond Provincial Court

Tuesday June 7, 2016

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge given the circumstances of the case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a valid driver's license. Rather than the mandatory minimun 12 month driving prohibition, our client received a driving prohibition of only one month.


R. vs. R.M. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday May 24, 2016

Charge: Driving Without Due Care and attention.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client, who was not found in the vehicle, was actually the driver.
Result: The charge was dismissed prior to the commencement of trial. No conviction. No driving prohibition.


Rvs. G.C. - Vancouver Traffic Court

Friday February 12, 2016

Charge: Failing to Obey a Traffic Control Device.
Issue: Whether our client's Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was breached.
Result: Upon filing the required Notice of our Charter Application, Crown counsel agreed with Mr. Johnson's submissions and entered a stay of proceedings. No conviction. No driving prohibition.


R. vs. A.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday February 10, 2016

Charge: Impaired Driving; Possession of Controlled Substance.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps that our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able tp persuade Crown counsel to stay the two criminal charges and proceed on the lesser Motor Vehicle Act charge of Driving Without Sue Care and Attention. Our client was sentenced to a fine and a driving prohibition. No criminal record.


R. vs. A.S. - Port Coquitlam provincial Court

Thursday February 4, 2016

Charge: Driving while Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a license. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court imposed a $1000 fine rather than the minimum mandatory 12 month driving prohibition that our client was facing.


R. vs. J.O. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday January 18, 2016

Charge: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this case which involved an accident.
Result: Based on our client's medical issues and the rehabilitative steps he had taken, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on a lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act. Our client received a fine and a 15 month driving prohibition but no criminal record.


R. vs. M.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday December 9, 2015

Charge: Dangerous Driving; Failing to Stop for Police; Possession of Controlled Substance.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to jail.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on our client's behalf, the trial judge imposed a $1000 fine and a 12 month driving prohibition on the dangerous driving charge and the Crown stayed the remaining two charges. No jail.


R. vs. X.L. - New Westminster Provincial Court

Wednesday October 28, 2015

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a licence. Rather than the 12 month minimum driving prohibition our client was facing, the Court imposed a 3 month prohibition.


R. vs. A.S. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Thursday October 22, 2015

Charge: Failing to obey a traffic control device.
Issue: Whether the police officer could accurately recall the physical characteristics of the roadway and the actions of our client.
Result: Upon conclusion of Mr. Mines' cross examination of the officer, the Court dismissed the charge.


R. vs. S.T. - Abbotsford Provincial Court

Monday September 28, 2015

Charge: Speeding.
Issue: Whether our client's right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.
Result: Crown Counsel agreed with our submission that the delay in bringing this matter to trial was in breach of our client's Charter rights. Stay of Proceedings.


R. vs. G.F. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday September 16, 2015

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client had notice that he was prohibited.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of Failing to Produce a Licence. The court imposed a $1500 fine but after conidering Mr. Johnson's submissions, did not order any driving prohibition.


R. vs. C.C. - Richmond Provincial Court

Thursday September 10, 2015

Charge: Driving without a Licence; Driving with a Handheld Device.
Issue: Whether our client's right to have his trial within a reasonable time was breached.
Result: Crown Counsel agreed with Mr. Johnson's submissions that the delay in bringing this matter to trial was unreasonable. Stay of Proceedings.


R. vs. J.Z. - Richmond Provincial Court

Tuesday August 25, 2015

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether our client had a lawful excuse for driving.
Result: Upon presenting our client's evidence to Crown Counsel, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a licence. Rather than the 12 month minimum driving prohibition our client was facing, the Court imposed a 3 month prohibition and a $300 fine. 


R. vs. S.R. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday July 2, 2015

Charge: Excessive Speeding.
Issue: Whether our client's right to be tried within a reasonable period of time was breached.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel that the approximately 20 month delay from offence to trial breached our client's Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time. Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No fine, driving prohibition or penalty points.


R. vs. D.H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday July 2, 2015

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether our client was aware that he was prohibited from driving. On conviction he faced a madatory minimum jail sentence.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown that our client reasonably believed he was not prohibited. Crown therefore agreed to proceed on the lesser charge of Failing to Produce a Valid Driver's License.The court imposed a  $250 fine. No jail. No driving prohibition.


R.H. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Friday May 22, 2015

Charge: 90 Day Immediate roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether or not police obtained valid breath samples from our client.
Result: We were able to provide evidence to the adjudicator that established that the breath machines had not been properly calibrated. The adjudicator agreed that no valid sample had been provided. Driving prohibition revoked. Our client was permitted to resume driving.


R. vs. S.S. - Abbotsford Traffic Court

Tuesday May 12, 2015

Charge: Driving without a Licence; Driving Contrary to Restriction (driving with blood alcohol).
Issue: Whether our client's Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.
Result: Crown Counsel agreed with Mr. Johnson's submission that the delay was a Charter breach. Both charges were stayed. No driving record.


R. vs. T.C. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Wednesday April 15, 2015

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether our client would receive the mandatory minimum 12 month driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a licence. Our client was sentenced to a $1000 fine. No driving prohibition. 


W.W. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Thursday April 9, 2015

Charge: 24 Hour Driving Prohibition (for alcohol).
Issue: Whether there was sufficient proof that our client was the driver.
Result: The adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that the police had not proved that our client had care or control of the vehicle. Driving prohibition revoked and removed from our client's driving record.


R. vs. E.M. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Wednesday March 11, 2015

Charge: Driving While Prohibited (MVA).
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to the mandatory minimum 12 month driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of Driving without a Valid License. The court imposed a $500 fine. No driving prohibition.


R.M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Tuesday March 3, 2015

Charge: Review of 90 day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the investigating police officer had complied with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Result: Upon considering Mr. Mines' submissions, the adjudicator agreed that the police report to the Superintendent was flawed. In the result, the driving prohibition was revoked and our client was permitted to resume driving.


J.L. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Wednesday January 14, 2015

Charge: Review of Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for our client to be prohibited for 5 months.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to  persuade the adjudicator to reduce the driving prohibition to 3 months.


R. vs. T.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday June 19, 2014

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether the police stopped and detained our client arbitrarily, contrary to his Charter rights.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of Failing to Produce a License. Rather than a minimum mandatory one year driving prohibition, our client recieved a fine. No further driving prohibition.


R. vs. T.X. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Wednesday April 30, 2014

Charge: Driving While Prohibited. 
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove our client had knowledge of his driving prohibition. 
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown that their case was weak. Complete stay of proceedings prior to trial. No record. No driving prohibition.


O.B. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Friday February 28, 2014

Charge: Review of Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for the Superintendent to issue our client a four month driving prohibition.
Result: We were able to persuade the Superintendent to reduce the prohibition from four months to one month.


R. vs. M.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday February 24, 2014

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to the mandatory 12 month minimum driving prohibition.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a valid licence. Three month prohibition imposed.


R. vs. D.A. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Thursday November 28, 2013

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to the mandatory minimm 12 month driving prohibition.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a valid licence. Five month driving prohibition imposed (concurrent with an existing prohibition).


R. vs. W.M. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday October 10, 2013

Charge: Impaired Driving.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of the offence and rehabilitative steps our client had taken, it was in the public interest to proceed with the
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on a lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act. No criminal record. No driving prohibition.

 


R. vs. T.L. - Richmond Provincial Court

Thursday October 3, 2013

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether the police breached our client's rights to be free from an unlawful detention.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of Failing to produce a Driver's licence. No driving prohibition.


R. vs. D.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday August 26, 2013

Charges: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to continue with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on a lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act. No criminal record.
 


R. vs. A.R. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday July 17, 2013

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown tp proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a licence and to aggree to a 6 month  driving prohibition.


R. vs. P.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Friday April 5, 2013

Charge: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: After our client completed rehabilitative steps on her own, we were able to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings on the criminal charge and to proceed on a lesser Motor Vehicle Act charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. Y.T. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Wednesday April 3, 2013

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge which carries a mandatory minimum 12 month driving prohibition..
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of Driving without a Licence. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. L.T.  -  Surrey Provincial Court

February 13, 2013

Charge: Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client's driving was the cause of this serious motor vehicle accident that caused life threatening injuries.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to point to material in the Post Crash Report that suggested that pre-existing defects to his client's vehicle's suspension was the cause of the roll-over. Crown downgraded the charge to a traffic violation under the Motor Vehicle Act. No jail; no criminal record; no driving prohibition; no loss of insurance coverage.

D.M.  vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

January 30, 2013

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether police had complied with their obligation to provide Mr. Mines' client with an opportunity to provide a second breath sample.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submissions, the adjudicator revoked the driving prohibition.

A.B.G.  vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

January 23, 2013

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether police had complied with their obligation to give Mr. Mines' client an opportunity to provide a second breath sample.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submissions, the adjudicator revoked the driving prohibition.

R. vs. A.H.J.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

October 30, 2012

Charge: Driving while prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge which carries a 12 month minimum mandatory driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on a lesser 3 point traffic offence. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. D.S.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

October 17, 2012

Charges: Hit and Run; Assault.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had the necessary intent to be convicted of the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to proceed on a three point Motor Vehicle Act offence. No criminal record.

R. vs. X.V.N.   -  Vancouver Provincial Court

September 18, 2012

Charges: Driving While Prohibited; Obstruct Police.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was, in fact, a prohibited driver and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the Obstruction charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide documentation to prove that his client was not a prohibited driver. He persuaded Crown to stay both criminal charges. No conviction. No further driving prohibition.

R. vs. M.S.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

September 10, 2012

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge, which carries a 12 month minimum mandatory driving prohibition.
Result: Prior to the trial commencing, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a licence. No driving prohibition.

K.Y. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

July 17, 2012

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition
Issue: Whether the police officer had proved that the breath test was taken with a properly calibrated Approved Screening Device.
Result: After agreeing with Mr. Mansoori-Dara's submissions that the officer had not proved that the breath testing device was reliable, the Adjudicator cancelled the driving prohibition, the monetary penalty and the vehicle impoundment.

R. vs. R.B.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

April 12, 2012

Charges: Driving While Prohibited; Failing to Attend Court.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a licence and to stay the FTA charge. No criminal record. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. S. B.  -  New Westminster Provincial Court

December 21, 2011

Charge: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether there was any public interest in proceeding on the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charges upon his client pleading guilty to a lesser offence under the Motor Vehicle Act. The court imposed a fine and a two month driving prohibition. No criminal record.

D. M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

December 16, 2011

Charge: 90 day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police investigation breached Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client to be free from an unlawful search and seizure of his breath sample.
Result: Driving Prohibition stayed on an interim basis.

B.G.A. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

December 15, 2011

Charge: 90 day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police investigation breached Mr. Mines' client's right to be free from an unlawful search and seizure of his breath sample.
Held: Driving prohibition stayed on an interim basis.

 

R. vs. J.J.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

December 9, 2011

Charge: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether, given Mr. Mines' client's condition following a motor vehicle accident,  the police had reasonable and probable grounds to make the breath demand.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed with a lesser offence under the Motor Vehicle Act. The court imposed a fine and a driving prohibition. No criminal record.

A.J. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

November 23, 2011

Charge: 90 day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police officer complied with his obligation to provide an opportunity for Mr. Mines'  client to provide a second breath sample.
Result: The Adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that the officer did not comply with the legislation. Driving prohibition revoked.  All fines and fees cancelled.

R.D. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

November 1, 2011

Charge: Review of Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to issue a 4 month driving prohibition.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submissions, the Superintendent reduced the prohibition to 2 months.

R. vs. S.P.  -  Abbotsford Provincial Court

October 28, 2011

Charges: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether police had breached Mr. Mansoori-Dara's clients' Charter rights during the investigation.
Result: The trial judge agreed with Mr. Mansoori-Dara's submissions. At the end of a two day trial, the court excluded the breath test certificates and found Mr. Mansoori Dara's client not guilty on both charges. No criminal or MVA record.

R. vs. L.R.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

September 13, 2011

Charges: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether police breached Mr. Mines' client's Charter rights to speak to counsel prior to obtaining breath samples.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to resolve the charges persuant to the Motor Vehicle Act. No criminal record.

R. vs. R. F. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August, 5, 2011

Charge: Driving while Suspended.
Issue: Whether, given the positive steps Mr. Mines' client had taken to rehabilitate himself, it was necessary to proceed with a criminal charge and to seek a driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to proceed with a Motor Vehicle Act charge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court imposed a $500 fine. No criminal record. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. P.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 3, 2011

Charge: Impaired Care or Control; Refusing a Breath Sample.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines's client clearly refused the breathalyzer, and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution, given that the car was parked and that Mr. Mines's client had taken positive steps to cease drinking altogether.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to Proceed on a lesser Motor Vehicle Act charge. After hearing, Mr. Mines' submissions the Court imposed a $1000 fine. No driving prohibition. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.M. - Squamish RCMP Investigation

June 09, 2011

Charge: Hit and Run.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that Mr. Mines' client was the driver involved in a hit and run accident.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to guide his client through the process of reporting the incident to ICBC and through the subsequent police investigation. In the result, Mr. Mines' client received a Motor Vehicle Act violation ticket as the owner (not the driver). No driving prohibition. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 29, 2011

Charge: Refusing a Breath Sample.
Issue: Whether the police conducted a lawful arrest and investigation of Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown to drop the charge prior to trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.N. - New Westminster Provincial Court

April 06, 2011

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client was, in fact, a prohibited driver.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to point to a flaw in the Prohibition document and the Crown agreed to proceed on the lesser (3 point) offence of Driving without a Licence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court imposed a $500 fine. No driving prohibition.

E.M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

March 07, 2011

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether it was fair and reasonable for the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to rely on the "fail" reading from the second roadside breath sample.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade counsel for the Superintendent to relieve his client of the requirement and expense of participating in the Responsible Driver Program and the Ignition Interlock Program.

R. vs. V. W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 08, 2010

Charge: Impaired Driving (x2); Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm; Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether the Court would accept Crown Counsel's submission that, in the circumstances of Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client, an off duty RCMP officer committing two separate impaired driving offences, the appropriate sentence should be 15 months jail.
Result: After considering Mr. Mansoori - Dara's extensive submissions concerning his client's background and the law involving serious personal injury offences, the trial judge granted a 60 day sentence to be served on weekends.

R. vs. S. S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 30, 2010

Charge: Dangerous Driving; Hit & Run.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for Crown Counsel to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to dispose of the matter under the Motor Vehicle Act. The Crown sought a two year driving prohibition and a fine. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge ordered a one year driving prohibition an a fine. No criminal record.

R. vs. H.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 12, 2010

Charge: Impaired Driving; Refusing a Breath Sample.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' clients' Charter rights had been violated during the police investigation.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations and assessing the strength of the case, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings.

R. vs. D. P. - Surrey Provincial Court

September 21, 2010

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether the police officer would be able to identify Mr. Mines' client.
Result: Just prior to the trial commencing, Mr. Mines pointed to a serious weakness in the Police Report concerning identification. He persuaded Crown Counsel to proceed on a less serious Motor Vehicle Act charge and his client received a $300 fine instead of the 12 month driving prohibition originally sought. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. P.K - Abbottsford Provincial Court

September 13, 2010

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether a jail sentence would be imposed.
Result: Because this was a second offence, Mr. Mines' client faced a presumptive minimum jail sentence of 14 days. Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to make a joint submission for an 18 month driving prohibition and a $750 fine, which was accepted by the court. No jail.

R. vs. J. L. - New Westminster Provincial Court

September 08, 2010

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to prohibit Mr. Mines' client from driving.
Result: Mr. Mines' client faced a minimum mandatory 12 month driving prohibition and 10 penalty points. Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to proceed on a lesser 3 point Motor Vehicle Act charge. After considering Mr, Mines' submissions, the court imposed a fine. No driving prohibition.

P. G. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

August 19, 2010

Charge: 24 Hour Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police officer had proved that Mr. Mines' client had care/control of his car while intoxicated.
Result: Prohibition revoked. Mr Mines presented evidence which the adjudicator accepted resulting in removing the "24 Hour" Prohibition from the client's driving record.

P. G. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

August 19, 2010

Charge: 24 Hour Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police officer had proved that Mr. Mines' client had care/control of his car while intoxicated.
Result: Prohibition revoked. Mr Mines presented evidence which the adjudicator accepted resulting in removing the "24 Hour" Prohibition from the client's driving record.

R. vs. R.F. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

June 30, 2010

Charge: Impaired Driving / Over .08.
Issue: Whether the breath readings could be explained by unabsorbed alcohol from a drink consumed minutes before the vehicle was stopped by police.
Result: During the course of the trial, after considering Mr. Mines' representations, his client's evidence and expert scientific evidence, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. L.M. - Kamloops Provincial Court

March 30, 2010

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had knowledge that he had been prohibited from driving.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a driver's license. Rather than the mandatory jail sentence originally sought, Mr. Mines' client received a $300 fine. No driving prohibition. No jail.

R. vs. A.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

March 23, 2010

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client had received notice of the driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a license. His client received a fine and a 3 month driving prohibition instead of the 12 months originally sought.

R. vs. F.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 18, 2010

Charge: Impaired Driving; Refusing Breath Sample.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had a lawful excuse for refusing to provide a roadside screening breath sample.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that his client had a valid medical excuse. The case was resolved under the Motor Vehicle Act. No criminal record. No driving prohibition.

D. C. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

March 08, 2010

Charge: 90 Day Driving Prohibition. ("ADP")
Issue: Whether the Report to Superintendent properly set out that Mr. Mines' client refused a breath sample demand.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submissions, the Adjudicator revoked the driving prohibition, allowing his client to resume driving.

R. vs. F. M. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

December 18, 2009

Charge: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client to resolve this matter pursuant to a lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act. The court imposed the minimum fine and a four month driving prohibition. No criminal record.

P.G. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

November 25, 2009

Charge: 90 Day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police had proved that Mr. Mines' client had refused to provide a sample in accordance with a lawful breath demand.
Result: The Adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that there was no lawful breath demand. Driving prohibition revoked.

R. vs. T.D. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 19, 2009

Charge: Impaired Driving; Refusing a Breath Sample.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings and proceed on the lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act. No criminal conviction.

P. G. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

October 05, 2009

Charge: 90 Day Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police officer had proved that Mr. Mines' client had refused to provide a sample in compliance with a lawful breath demand.
Result: Prohibition revoked. The Adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that there was no lawful breath demand. In the result, Mr. Mines' client was able to resume driving.

V.L. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

March 11, 2009

Charge: Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to prohibit Mr. Mines' client from driving.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the adjudicator to not prohibit his client from driving, but to instead place him on probation.

M.H. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

February 17, 2009

Charge: 90 Day Administrative Driving Prohibition
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be permitted to drive pending the Judicial Review of his 90 day prohibition from driving.
Result: Mr Mines was able to obtain a stay of the prohibition, allowing his client to resume driving on an interim basis.

R. vs. V.N. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 02, 2009

Charge: Dangerous Driving; Hit & Run; Impaired Driving; Over .08; Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be convicted of all charges.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to proceed only on the single count of Driving Over .08. The court fined Mr. Mines client and prohibited him from driving. Crown entered stays of proceedings on the more serious criminal charges. No jail.

R. vs. N.K. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

January 23, 2009

Charge: Driving while Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be subject to a further 12 month driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of Driving Without a License, contrary to s.24 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The court imposed a 3 month driving prohibition and a fine.

R. vs. J. H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

January 14, 2009

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client knew that he was prohibited from driving.
Result: Midway through the trial, after considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel agreed to accept a guilty plea to the lesser offence of driving without a license pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Act. Mr. Mines' client received a fine instead of a jail sentence. The court imposed no further driving prohibition.

R. vs. J.A. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

December 04, 2008

Charge: Dangerous Driving.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that the driving, which resulted in an accident that caused almost $90,000 in property damage, amounted to a criminal offence.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on a lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act.
Three month driving prohibition; No loss of insurance coverage; No criminal record.

S.K. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

November 04, 2008

Charge: 90 Day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the investigating police officer had submitted a Report to Superintendent in the proper form.
Result: The Adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that the report was not properly filed. The driving prohibition was cancelled, allowing Mr. Mines' client to continue driving.

J.R. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

November 03, 2008

Charge: 90 Day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the investigating police officer had submitted a Report to Superintendent in the proper form.
Result: The adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that the police report to Superintendent was flawed. The prohibition was cancelled, allowing Mr. Mines' client to continue driving.

J.A. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

September 08, 2008

Charge: Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to prohibit Mr. Mines' client from driving.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the adjudicator to reduce the prohibition from 6 months to 3 months.

D.F. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

July 10, 2008

Charge: Review of 90 Day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the adjudicator had sufficient material from the investigating police officer to uphold the driving prohibition imposed upon Mr. Mines' client.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the adjudicator refused to grant an adjournment of the hearing and Mr. Mines' client's driving prohibition was cancelled, allowing him to continue driving.

R. vs. K.D. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 07, 2008

Charge: Hit and Run Investigation.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be charged with a criminal offence when he left his car after an accident.
Result: After Mr. Mines' submissions to police, his client was issued a Motor Vehicle Act violation ticket and was not charged with a crime. No criminal record.

H. L. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

November 13, 2007

Charge: 60 Day Vehicle Impoundment Review.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client's vehicle to remain impounded by police.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the adjudicator ruled that the vehicle should be returned at no cost to Mr. Mines' client.

R. vs. C.R. - Surrey Provincial Court

October 19, 2007

Charge: Impaired Driving; Driving Over .08.
Issue: Whether the Crown had a substantial liklihood of obtaining a criminal conviction.
Result: After making submissions to Crown Counsel, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to drop the criminal charges upon his client pleading guilty to a lesser offence under the Motor Vehicle Act.

R. vs. R.D.W. - Provincial Court of Alberta

September 13, 2007

Charge: Impaired Driving / Over .08.
Issue: Whether the police officer had legal grounds to demand a breath sample.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge ruled that the officer acted improperly. The breath test results were excluded, and Mr. Mines' client was acquitted on both charges.

R. vs. A.R. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

April 10, 2007

Charge: Impaired Driving/Over .08
Issue: Whether police had lawful grounds to demand a breath sample which resulted in readings over the legal limit.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge ruled the breath results inadmissible and dismissed both charges.

R. vs. Y.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 23, 2007

Charge: Impaired Driving/Refuse Breath Test.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had a lawful excuse for refusing to provide a breath sample.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submission that the police officer made an unlawful breath demand, Crown Counsel withdrew the charges prior to trial.

R. vs. M.P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 27, 2006

Charge: Impaired Driving; Driving Over.08.
Issue: Whether breath test readings and evidence of driving infractions would amount to a conviction.
Result: Not Guilty. The trial judge, after hearing Mr. Mines' client testify about his drinking pattern and after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, had a reasonable doubt and dismissed both charges.

B.R. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

October 13, 2006

Charge: 90 day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police had provided the Superintendent's office with a reliable and accurate report setting out why Mr. Mines' client should be prohibited from driving.
Result: Driving Prohibition revoked upon review. The adjudicator found that the police report did not disclose essential information, allowing Mr. Mines' client to resume driving.

R. vs. R.E. - Penticton Provincial Court

July 12, 2006

Charge: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether police breached Mr. Mines' client's Charter right to be properly advised of a telephone call to a lawyer.
Result: Criminal charges withdrawn. Mr. Mines persuaded the Crown to proceed on a less serious charge under the Motor Vehicle Act. His client received a fine with no driving prohibition.

R. vs. S.T. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

May 23, 2006

Charge: Impaired Driving/ Over .08.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove the accuracy of the breath tests.
Result: Criminal charges withdrawn. Mr. Mines persuaded the Crown to proceed on a less serious Motor Vehicle Act charge. His client was fined and received no driving prohibition.

R. vs. P.H. - Merritt Provincial Court

April 11, 2006

Charge: Impaired Driving/ Over .08.
Issue: Whether Crown was aware of its obligation to adduce evidence from a blood alcohol expert, given that the breath tests were taken outside the 2 hour limit.
Result: Charges withdrawn by Crown. Complete stay of proceedings prior to trial.

D.R. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles - Vancouver Supreme Court

September 25, 2005

Charge: Application to Set Aside a Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client ought to have been prohibited based on his driving record.
Result: Driving prohibition set aside after Mr. Mines was able to obtain new trials and subsequent Crown withdrawals of two traffic offence convictions.

R. vs. D.H. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 27, 2005

Charge: Impaired Driving/ Over .08.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be granted a second adjournment of the trial.
Result: After submissions to Crown by Mr. Mines, Crown Counsel withdrew the criminal charges and agreed to accept a guilty plea to Driving Without Due Care and Attention under the Motor Vehicle Act. Mr. Mines' client received a $200 fine but was not prohibited from driving.

R. vs. C.H.C. Vancouver Provincial Court

January 19, 2005

Charge: Impaired Driving; Over .08
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had "care or control" of the car.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge had doubt that Mr. Mines' client was in care or control.

R. vs. K.O. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

September 14, 2004

Charge: Impaired Driving/Over .08.
Issue: Whether breath test readings and evidence of impaired driving would amount to conviction.
Result: Criminal charges withdrawn. Mr. Mines persuaded the Crown to proceed on a less serious Motor Vehicle Act offence. Mr. Mines' client received a fine but was not prohibited from driving.

R. vs. K.O. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

September 14, 2004

Charge: 90 Day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police had provided the Superintendent's office with a reliable and accurate report setting out why Mr. Mines' client should be prohibited from driving.
Result: Driving Prohibition revoked upon review. The adjudicator ruled that essential information was missing, and allowed Mr. Mines' client to resume driving.

D.H. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

April 24, 2004

Charge: 90 Day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police have provided the Superintendent's office with a reliable and accurate report setting out why Mr. Mines' client should be prohibited from driving.
Result: Driving Prohibition revoked upon review. The adjudicator ruled that the Report lacked essential information and allowed Mr. Mines' client to resume driving.


R. vs. U.J.O. - Brampton, Ontario Court of Justice

Thursday March 30, 2017

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: To what extent could Crown counsel prove that our client was involved in a "foreign lottery scam" designed to deprive the complainant of $65,000?
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown that our client was merely a courier and not a director of the fraud. Rather than the jail sentence Crown had been seeking, our client pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of attempted fraud under $5000. He was sentenced to a $2000 fine and 12 months probation.


R. vs. S.S. - Vancouver Police Investigation

Friday February 3, 2017

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Given the civil settlement of this matter, whether it was  in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to achieve a civil settlement on behalf of our client. On this basis the police elected to not proceed with any charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. S.J. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Thursday December 1, 2016

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client actually removed items from the store.
Result: Because no items were recovered from our client and because the surveillance video was inconclusive, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve any charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. M.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday November 10, 2016

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persude Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program and to enter a stay of proceedings upon compltion. No criminal record.


R. vs. R.M. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Thursday September 29, 2016

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was  in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge in this $400 shoplifting case.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve the criminal charge upon our client completing Alternative Measures.


R. vs. S.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Friday July 22, 2016

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to prosecute.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown that our client had a viable explanation for not paying his bill. Crown entered a stay of proceedings and cancelled the arrest warrant. No criminal record.


R.vs. M.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday May 12, 2016

Charge: Attempted Fraud Over $5,000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a discharge in the circumstances of attempting to fraudulently open a $50,000 bank line of credit.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation for one year.


R. vs. E.K. - BC Provincial Court

Tuesday April 19, 2016

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to jail for this $480,000 breach of trust fraud offence.
Result: Mr. Mines successfully negotiated a civil settlement in  the amount of $200,000. He was then able to persuade Crown Counsel to agree to not seek a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court sentenced our client to an 18 month conditional sentence. No jail.


R. v. C.H. - Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Thursday April 7, 2016

Charge: Mischief to property.
Issue: Whether our client had criminal intent to damage the property in question.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel decided there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. They elected not to approve any charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. M.H. - Richmond RCMP Investigation

Thursday March 24, 2016

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable liklihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines made representations to the investigating officer which ultimately resulted in the police deciding to not proceed on any charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. N.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday February 25, 2016

Charge: Theft; Posession of Stolen Property Under $5000.
Issue: Whether, given new evidence provided by our client, the Crown had a reasonable prospect of a conviction.
Result: At the outset of the trial, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to call no evidence. The trial judge dismissed both charges. No criminal record.


R. vs. RHG - Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday February 3, 2016

Charge: Attempted B&E.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client intended to break into the business establishment.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel that, despite being found on the rooftop in suspicious circumstances, our client had a reasonable explanation for being there. Charges stayed. No criminal record.


R. vs. E.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday January 11, 2016

Charge: Robbery.
Issue: Whether Crown witnesses could identify our client as the person who robbed the bank.
Result: Mr. Johnson directed the Court's attention to a body of evidence which suggested that police unfairly manipulated the photographs on which our client was identified. On the 6th day of trial. Crown counsel directed a stay of proceedings. No conviction. No criminal record.


R. vs. C.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday January 7, 2016

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether, despite being caught on video surveillance, it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings upon our client completing the Alternative Measures program. No criminal record.


R. vs. E.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday January 5, 2016

Charge: Robbery.
Issue: Whether Crown witnesses could identify our client as the person who robbed the bank.
Result: Mr. Johnson directed the Court's attention to a body of evidence which suggested that police unfairly manipulated the photographs on which our client was identified. On the 6th day of trial. Crown counsel directed a stay of proceedings. No conviction. No criminal record.


R. vs. R.C. - Vancouver Police Investigation

Thursday October 1, 2015

Charge: Theft; Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Whether police would proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a civil settlement in the amount of $7,500 in this case where our client was alleged to have defrauded a corporation of more than $25,000. No criminal charges.


R. vs. M.P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Friday September 4, 2015

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceeed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel that, given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken on his own initiative, it was no longer necessary to proceed. No charge was ever approved. No criminal record.


R. vs. C.V. - Vancouver Police Investigation

Friday August 28, 2015

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that our client had knowledge that the property that he possessed was stolen.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investigation without any charges being recommended. No criminal record.


R. vs. M.E. - Vancouver Civil Matter

Thursday August 27, 2015

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Whether the complainant corporation would proceed with a criminal complaint in this alleged $30,000 fraud case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a civil settlement  in the amount of $20,000 on our client's behalf. No charges were forwarded.


R. vs. V.G. - Surrey Provincial Court

Monday May 11, 2015

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether, given our representations to Crown counsel regarding our client's lack of intention to steal, there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Crown agreed to stay the charge prior to the matter being set down for trial. No criminal record or any other sanction imposed.


R. vs. L.H. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday April 23, 2015

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures progream without any charge being approved. No criminal record.


R. vs. G.C. - West Vancouver Police Investigation

Wednesday April 1, 2015

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Our client made restitution to the complainant and, in the circumstances, Mr. Mines was able to persuade police to treat the case as a civil file. No criminal charges were forwarded. No criminal record.


R. vs. R.P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday February 3, 2015

Charge: Theft Under $5000; Fraud Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was warranted in the circumstances.
Result: Despite having a prior record for a similar offence, our client took rehabilitatve steps which allowed us to persuade Crown counsel to not seek  jail. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted her a six month conditional sentence with no house arrest or curfew.


R. vs. D.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday January 8, 2015

Charge: Theft Under $5000; Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the Crown to continue with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Notwithstanding that our client was accused of assaulting the loss prevention officer that apprehended her for shoplifting, we were able to persuade Crown to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program. No charge approved. No criminal record.


R. vs. W.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday December 8, 2014

Charge: Theft under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Based on the rehabilitative steps our client initiated, we were able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow her into the Alternative Measures Program without approving any charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. M.F. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Friday December 5, 2014

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Wheter it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to issue a Caution Letter without approving any criminal charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. C.V. - Civil Investigation

Wednesday November 12, 2014

Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether the complainant would forward charges to police.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate repayment of the misapproptiated funds without our client admitting civil or criminal liability. No charges forwarded or approved. No criminal or police record.


R. vs. R.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday October 29, 2014

Charge: Fraud/Theft Over $5000.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail for this $150,000 investment fraud matter.
Result: Breach of trust notwithstanding, the Court agreed with our sentencing submission and imposed a 12 month conditional sentence. No jail.


R. vs. S.W. Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Wednesday August 6, 2014

Charge: Theft/Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to jail for this breach of trust theft of $20,000.
Result: Based on the rehabilitative steps our client had taken prior to trial, Mr. Mines was acle to persuade the Crown to agree to a joint submission for a Conditional Sentence Order with a provision for counselling. No jail, curfew or house arrest.


R. vs. M.P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday July 31, 2014

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence and the exceptional rehabilative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures program and to stay the criminal charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. A.C. - Vancouver Police Investigation

Monday July 7, 2014

Charge: Public Mischief; Obstructing Police.
Issue: Whether our client would be charged for providing a false/misleading statement to police.
Result: We were able to provide a new statement to police on our client's behalf. File concluded with no criminal charges being forwarded.


R. vs. H.A. - Saskatoon Provincial Court

Monday June 23, 2014

Charge: Theft; Possess Break-in Instruments; Breach of Bail; Failure to Appear.
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the criminal charges.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown counsel to enter stays of proceedings on all charges. No criminal record.


R. vs. A.H. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday April 15, 2014

Charge: Theft under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson persuaded Crown to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program. No charge was approved. No criminal record.


R. vs. R.J. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday April 9, 2014

Charges: Fraud Over $5000 (x5).
Issue: Whether jail was the appropriate sentence in this $116,000 fraud case involving five complainants.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client an 18 month Conditional Sentence. No jail.


R. vs. S.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday January 23, 2014

Charge: Breaking and Entering; Participating in a Riot.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: Notwithstanding our client's participation in the infamous Stanley Cup Riot, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.


R. vs. C.E. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday January 14, 2014

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in this $36,000 emloyee fraud case.
Result: Notwithstanding the breach of trust, the Court granted the "unusual result" of a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and a restitution order. No jail or house arrest.


R. vs. C.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday January 8, 2014

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program prior to any charge being approved. No criminal record.


R. vs. M.P. - Vancouver Police Investigation

Thursday November 7, 2013

Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).

Issue: Whether there was credible evidence that our client stole $15,000 from her employer.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investigation which concluded with no criminal charge being forwarded. No criminal record.

 

R. vs. H.C.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

September 27, 2013

Charges: Breaking & Entering; Mischief to Property.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program. Upon successful completion, Crown enterd a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

 

R. vs. R.W.  -  North Vancouver Provincial Court

September 23, 2013

Charge: Fraud Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court agreed that it was not contrary to the public interest to grant a conditional discharge. No criminal record.

 

R. vs. T.V.  Vancouver Provincial Court

August 22, 2013
 
Charge: Frud Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the Crown to approve a criminal charge.
Result: Because of steps our client took post offence, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to not approve any charge. No crominal record.
 

R. vs. M.P. & H.K.  -  North Vancouver Provincial Court

August 7, 2013

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for our clients to believe that they were still on store property when they were apprehended for theft.
Result: The trial judge agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that his clients lacked the necessary intent to steal. Not Guilty. No criminal record.

R. vs. E.T.  -   North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 18, 2013

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it eas in the public interest for our client to be granted a discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the court to grant his client an absolute discharge. No probation. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.X.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

June 14, 2013

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve any charge in relation to this matter. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.S.  -  Richmond RCMP Investigation

June 5, 2013

Charge: Theft/Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether, given the civil settlement of the alleged misappropriation of property (worth in excess of $60,000), it was nessesary to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a $35,000 civil settlement. No charges approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.D.  - Richmond Provincial Court

June 4, 2013

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was necessary for Crown to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to issue his client a Caution. No charge approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. P.L.  -   Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

June 3, 2013

Charges: Fraud Over $5000 (x14)
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced  to the 24 - 30 month jail sentence the Crown had sought on this large scale ($270,000 ) employee fraud case.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines submissions, the court agreed that, given the circumstances, a 2 year Conditional Sentence was approriate. No jail.

R. vs. L.A.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

May 7, 2013

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Upon his client taking restorative steps on her own, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve any charge in this case. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.M.  -  Vancouver Youth Justice Court

May 1, 2013

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Mr. Mines' client to receive a conviction.
Result: After hearing mr. Mines' submissions, the Court grantedhis client a Conditional Dischrge. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.M.  -  North Vancouver provincial Court

February 20, 2013

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be granted a discharge or the conditional sentence sought by the Crown.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the court granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. R.R.  -  North Vancouver Provincial Court

January 7, 2013

Charges: Theft Under $5000; Possession of Stolen Property.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mansoori-Daras' client knew that the co-accused had stolen a purse from a nearby vehicle.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown to stay the criminal charges upon his client completing Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.A.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

November 14, 2012

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client to receive a discharge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Manoori-Dara's submissions on his client's behalf, the Court granted a  4 month Conditional Discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. H.L.  -  Richmond Provincial Court

October 15, 2012

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: After considering information provided by police and by Mr. Mines, Crown Counsel decided to not approve any charge.  No criminal record.

R. vs. J.T.  -  Surrey Provincial Court

August 29, 2012

Charge: Fraudulent Disposal of Property (Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would receive a conditional jail sentence and be ordered to make restitution of $22,000.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to not seek the restitution order and, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the court granted his client a suspended sentence.

R. vs. S.A.  -   North Vancouver Provincial Court

August 7, 2012

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove the identity of the person who stole the property.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown that the identification evidence was weak, resulting in Crown entering a stay of proceedings just before trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.K.  -   North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 11,  2012

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve the charge upon his client completing Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.N.  -  Vancouver Police Investigation

June 27, 2012

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether, based on input from the complainant, the police would recommend criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a civil settlement and obtained a Release from the complainant without his client admitting any civil or criminal liability. No criminal charges forwarded to Crown counsel.

R. vs. T. L.  -  Vancouver Youth Justice Court

June 1, 2012

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether, it was in the interests of justice to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to not approve the charge and to resolve the matter by issuing a caution letter to his client. No criminal record.

R. vs. I.N.  -  Richmond Provincial Court

May 30, 2012

Charges: Theft/Fraud Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to recieve a conditional discharge or the conditional jail sentence sought by the Crown.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted his client a conditional discharge. No conviction.

R. vs. D.R.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

May 29, 2012

Charge: Misrepresenting Facts (Immigration & Refugee Protection Act).
Issue: Whether Crown would be able to prove the offence through business documents that linked our client to the offence. Crown had sought a one year jail sentence.
Result: After two days of pretrial hearings, and after considering representations made by Mr. Mines and Mr. Mansoori-Dara, Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. Y.S.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

May 16, 2012

Charge: Theft Under $5000.00 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had the intention to steal the items.
Result: Mr. Mines successfuly conveyed his client's explanation to Crown Counsel. The items were taken from the store by accident. No criminal charge approved.

R. vs. L.D.   -  Richmond  Provincial Court

March 28, 2012

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interset to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to intervene at the earliest stage of the prosecution, He persuaded Crown Counsel to approve no charge in this case. No record.

R. vs. J.Z.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

March 9, 2012

Charge: Breaking and Entering; Possession of Stolen Property.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of this commercial property offence, it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.S.F.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

February 15, 2012

Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether the Court would impose the one year jail sentence the Crown sought in this $100,000 theft from employer case.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted his client a Conditional Sentence Order. No jail.

R. vs. V.K.  -  Richmond Provincial Court

January 25, 2012

Charges: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether it was contrary to the public interest for Mr. Mines' client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted a 9 month conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. B.T. -  Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

January 5, 2012

Charges: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether jail was the appropriate sentence for this breach of trust case which involved a theft of almost $70,000.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to resolve this case on a single count of theft and to persue a joint submission for a community based sentence. The court granted an 18 month conditional sentence order. No jail.

R. vs. K.H. -  North Vancouver Provincial Court

November 30, 2011

Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of this ongoing theft in excess of $10,000, it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be sentenced to a conditional jail sentence or not.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his clients' behalf, the Court granted a conditional discharge. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.B.  -  RCMP Investigation

November 15, 2011

Charge: Fraud Over $5000; Proceeds of Crime.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to tie Mr. Mines' client to the offence of a second party whom had been charged withe a large scale fraud.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through the investigation with no charge being approved.

R.vs. A.A.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

October 26, 2011

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interst to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines persuded Crown Counsel to allow his clint into the Alternative Measures Program without the charge ever being approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.L.  -  Richmond Provincial Court

October 21, 2011

Charges: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client's Charter rights had been breached due to the delay in the police investigation.
Result: Mr. Mines argued that there was an abuse of process and was able to persuade Crown to enter a Stay of Proceedings upon his client completing the Alternative Measures program. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.K.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

September 30, 2011

Charges: Fraud; Attempted Fraud Over $5000; Using forged documents.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would receive a lengthy jail sentence for defrauding or attempting to defraud three financial insitutions of $100,000.
Result: Crown had originally sought a 12 month jail sentence. Mr. Mines was able to successfuly negotiate a plea bargain. After hearing the Crown's and Mr. Mines' joint submission, the court imposed a 30 day sentence.

R. vs. M.G.V.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

August 31, 2011

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from Employer).
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the full amount of the theft.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown that only $70 was provable.  After hearing submissions, the Court granted Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.B.  -   Vancouver Provincial Court

August 13, 2011

Charges: Mischief to Property; Breach of Undertaking.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client, it was in the public interest for him to have a criminal record.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown Counsel to make a joint submission for a Conditional Discharge which was granted by the court. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.P.   -   Richmond Provincial Court

August 11 ,2011

Charges: Theft Under $5000 (from Employer).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, a jail sentence was appropriate.
Result: After making representations to Crown Counsel and the Court, Mr. Mines client was ordered to pay restitution and was granted a Conditional Discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. B.C. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

June 28, 2011

Charge: Theft under $5000 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into Alternative Measures without ever approving a charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. E.S. - ICBC Investigation

June 14, 2011

Charge: Fraud; Misrepresentation
Issue: Whether or not ICBC would be recommending criminal charges with respect to an alleged fraudulent motor vehicle claim.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a civil settlement without admitting his client's civil or criminal liability. No charge was recommended.

R. vs. O.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 09, 2011

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve any charge in this case. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 03, 2011

Charge: Fraud / Theft Over $5000.
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client who stole bank cards and cheques from a number of his neighbors and then fraudulently obtained in the range of $30,000.
Result: After considering a psychological report and hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the court suspended the sentence and placed Mr. Mines' client on probation. No jail.

R. vs. G.H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 01, 2011

Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client stole approximately $20,000 from her employer.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown that $20,000 was not provable and to proceed on the lesser charge of Theft Under $5000. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the court granted his client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. R.C. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

February 24, 2011

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures and to stay the criminal charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.K. - Surrey Provincial Court

February 18, 2011

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property; Using Forged Documents.
Issue: Whether, because of Mr. Mines' client's prior related criminal record, it would be appropriate for the court to impose a jail sentence.
Result: Though the crown sought a jail sentence, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted his client a Conditional Sentence. No jail.

R. vs. L.D. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 08, 2011

Charge: Breaking and Entering.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program. Upon completing the program, Crown entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

January 21, 2011

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve a criminal charge in the circumstances. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.L. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

January 17, 2011

Charge: Theft Under $5000 ( from employer).
Issue: Whether a jail sentence or a criminal conviction was warranted in the circumstances.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. M.M. — Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

December 16, 2010

Charge: Breaking and Entering; Possession of Stolen Property.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of a youthful first time offender, a criminal prosecution was in the public interest.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program and to enter a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 15, 2010

Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail for stealing over $330,000 from her employer.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a successful resolution with Crown Counsel. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted his client a Conditional Sentence and made an order for restitution. No jail.

R. vs. M.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 15, 2010

Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail for stealing over $330,000 from her employer.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a successful resolution with Crown Counsel. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted his client a Conditional Sentence and made an order for restitution. No jail.

R. vs S. Q. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 17, 2010

Charge: Fraud Over $5,000.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstance, a jail sentence was warranted for Mr. Mines' client who defrauded a credit union of more than $50,000.
Result: Mr. Mines made representations that resulted in the Court accepting a joint submission for a 24 month Suspended Sentence and a "stand alone" restitution order. No jail.

R. vs. R.D. - Surrey Provincial Court

October 08, 2010

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 (from Employer).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of a fraud in excess of $10,000 where no restitution had been made, a jail sentence was appropriate.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted his client a Conditional Sentence. No jail.

R. vs. V.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 23, 2010

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: The Crown stayed the charge after Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. H.K. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

August 04, 2010

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge for this shoplifting offence.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings upon his client completing the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. E.T. - Richmond Provincial Court

July 20, 2010

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program and to enter a Stay of Proceedings upon its completion.
No criminal record.

R. vs. G.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 02, 2010

Charge: Attempted Break & Enter.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client was a willing party to the offence.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. A. C. - Surrey Provincial Court

June 09, 2010

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures. Upon completion of the program, Crown entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. R. L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 27, 2010

Charge: Fraud / Theft Under $5000 ( from Employer).
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for the court to grant Mr. Mines' client a Discharge in this "breach of trust" situation.
Result: The Crown sought a conviction through a Conditional Sentence Order, but after hearing Mr.Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the court granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. v. L.P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 07, 2010

Charge: Fraudulent Concealment (x 5).
Issue: What was the appropriate disposition for Mr. Mines' client who had surrendered herself on a Canada-wide warrant for her role in an identity theft scheme.
Result: The Crown had originally sought a 2 year jail sentence. After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown and defence made a joint submission which the Court accepted. Two year suspended sentence. No jail.

R. vs. S. B. - Vancouver Provincial Court.

March 22, 2010

Charge: Robbery.
Issue: Whether the Crown had proved that Mr. Mines' client had committed a robbery.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge found Mr. Mines' client not guilty of robbery, entering a conviction on the lesser offence of theft. Rather than the 8 month sentence the Crown sought, Mr Mines' client received 14 days.

R. vs. M.S. - Vancouver Police Investigation

March 22, 2010

Charge: Theft; Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be charged with a criminal offence in this large scale breach of trust case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a restitution agreement and obtained a civil settlement for his client. No criminal charges.

R. vs. C.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 15, 2010

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: What was the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of Mr. Mines's client who obtained over $65,000 worth of jewelry by writing fraudulent cheques.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate an agreement with Crown Counsel and, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted his client a suspended sentence and ordered restitution in half the amount Crown originally sought. No jail.

R. vs. D.B. - Richmond Provincial Court

December 15, 2009

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest for Crown Counsel to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve criminal charges and to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. D. O. Vancouver Police Investigation

September 09, 2009

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from employer)
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, there was enough evidence and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through the investigation. He made representations to the police which resulted in no criminal charge being laid.

R. vs. P.B. - Calgary Provincial Court

August 28, 2009

Charge: Theft Under $5,000.
Issue: Whether the Crown had proved that Mr. Mines' client intended to steal property that had gone missing from a moving company.
Result: Not Guilty. After Mr. Mines' thorough cross examination of the complainant, the trial judge acquitted Mr. Mines' client on the basis that he had no intent to convert the missing property to his own use. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.P.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 30, 2009

Charge: Utter a Forged Document; Attempted Fraud.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest for Mr. Mines' client to receive a criminal conviction.
Result: The trial judge agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that his client had taken sufficient rehabilitative steps to warrant being granted a Conditional Discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. A.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 23, 2009

Charge: Theft from Employer.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would receive a conviction for staling money from her workplace.
Result: Conditional Discharge. The trial judge agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that, even though this was a breach of trust situation, a criminal conviction was not warranted.

R. vs. Y.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 15, 2009

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into Alternative Measures without formally approving the charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.O. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 09, 2009

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of Mr. Mines' client, it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into Alternative Measures. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.M. - New Westminster Provincial Court

February 02, 2009

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to receive a criminal record.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court to granted his client an Absolute Discharge. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.A. - Richmond Provincial Court

October 01, 2008

Charge: Theft Over $5,000.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client, who stole over $250,000 from his employer, would be sentenced to jail.
Result: Even though this was a serious breach of trust situation, Mr. Mines made submissions to the court which resulted in his client being granted a Conditional Sentence to be served in the community. No jail.

R. vs. D.C. - Richmond Provincial Court

August 26, 2008

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to withdraw the charge after his client completed Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.W. - Richmond Provincial Court

August 15, 2008

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program. No charge ever approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.S. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

May 15, 2008

Charge: Theft from Employer.
Issue: Whether it would be appropriate for Crown to not proceed with a criminal charge in this breach of trust situation.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to permit his client into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. N.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 08, 2008

Charge: Mischief to Property Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to withdraw the criminal charge after his client completed Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.R. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

March 13, 2008

Charge: Assault with a Weapon, Threatening, Possession of a Firearm.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the case considering the strength of the identification evidence.
Result: Crown Counsel entered a stay of proceedings prior to the trial date, resulting in no criminal record for Mr. Mines' client.

R. vs. A.G. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

January 11, 2008

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this matter.
Result: As the result of Mr Mines' early intervention and his client's completion of Alternative Measures, Crown Counsel was persuaded to not approve criminal charges.

R. vs. J. S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 03, 2007

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove the charge.
Result: Crown withdrew the charge prior to trial.

R. vs. R.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 06, 2007

Charge: Break and Entering / Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether Crown would be able to prove the identity of the persons who unlawfully entered the complainant's home.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown Counsel withdrew the criminal charges upon Mr. Mines' client entering into a "peace bond" to have no contact with the complainant.

R. vs. R.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 30, 2007

Charge: Breach of Probation.
Issue: Whether the clamp found in the possession of Mr. Mines' client was a "tool", contrary to his probation conditions.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge found that the item was not a "tool" and dismissed the charge.

R. vs. W.B.L. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

December 01, 2006

Charge: Fraud Over $5,000; Uttering Forged Documents Over $5,000.
Issue: Whether the accused mortgage broker, in a breach of trust situation, would be sentenced to jail.
Result: Eighteen month Conditional Sentence Order. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court agreed that a jail sentence was not warranted.

R. vs. H.N. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 24, 2006

Charge: Theft Under $5,000.
Issue: Whether Crown would approve the charge of shoplifting.
Result: Mr. Mines arranged for his client to enter and complete Alternative Measures Program. No charge was ever approved.

R. vs. J.H.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 14, 2006

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client knew that the property (mountain bike) was stolen.
Result: Charge Withdrawn. Mr. Mines was successful in persuading Crown of his client's explanation, making a trial unnecessary.

R. vs. S.Y. - Richmond Provincial Court

April 06, 2006

Charge: Theft from Employer.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would receive a conviction for stealing money from her workplace.
Result: Conditional Discharge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the Judge agreed that, even though this was a breach of trust situation, neither jail, nor even a criminal conviction was warranted.

R. vs. K.M. - Richmond Provincial Court

December 02, 2005

Charge: Theft Under $5,000 (two charges).
Issue: Was it appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to receive criminal convictions for these offences?
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the judge granted Mr. Mines' client a Discharge on each shoplifting charge.
No criminal record.

R. vs. Y.F. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 28, 2004

Charge: Theft/Fraud Under $5,000.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be suitable for Alternative Measures in the circumstances of committing a fraud in the range of $3,000.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions and after his client Completed the Alternative Measures Program, the Crown withdrew the criminal charges.


R. vs. T.C. - Surrey Provincial Court

Monday May 15, 2017

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to  provide our client's relevant medical records to Crown which, ultimately, led to Crown declining to approve any charge against our client. No criminal record.


R. vs. M.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday May 9, 2017

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps that our client had taken on his own initiative, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that there was no longer a need to prosecute our client. Crown directed a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. A.W. - Richmond Provincial Court

Monday May 1, 2017

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown that there was a lack of evidence that would lead to a conviction resulting in Crown deciding to not approve any charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. G.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday March 16, 2017

Charge: Assault with a weapon.
Issue: Given new evidence provided by Mr. Johnson to Crown counsel, whether there was a raesonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. E.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday March 15, 2017

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client took on his own initiative, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. S.J. - North Vancouver RCMP Investigation

Wednesday March 15, 2017

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, given information provided to police investigators by Mr. Johnson, there was a public interest in proceeding.
Result: Police agreed that, given the totality of the circumstances, there was no public interest in approving any charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. H.Z. and G.L. - Surrey RCMP Investigation

Tuesday February 28, 2017

Charge: Careless Use of a Firearm.
Issue: Whether our clients had the requisite level of intent or carelessness when discharging the firearm.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide police with information about our clients which contributed to the police decision to not recommend any charges. No criminal record.


R. vs. G.T. - Richmond Provincial Court

Thursday February 23, 2017

Charge: Assault; Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Result: At the conclusion of the Crown's case, the trial judge dismissed both charges against Mr. Johnson's client. Not guilty. No criminal record.


R. vs. A.F. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday February 21, 2017

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether ther was a reasonable liklihood of a conviction.
Result: After considering information we provided to the Crown on our client's behalf, Crown Counsel decided to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. K.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday January 26, 2017

Charge: Assault; Posssession of Cocaine.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a discharge.
Result: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the drug charge and was able to persuade the Court to grant our client an Absolute Discharge. No criminal record.


R. vs. D.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday January 25, 2017

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was enough clear evidence to charge our client with assault.
Result: Upon considering the nature and quality of the complaint, along with the information about our client presented by Mr. Mines, Crown Counsel declined to approve a charge. No criminal record.


R. v. T.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday January 17, 2017

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Mischief; Posession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps taken by our client, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to stay all charges upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.


R. vs. A.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday January 16, 2017

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that, based on new information provided to the Crown, that there was no raesonable prospect of a conviction. Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. I.M. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Friday January 13, 2017

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to provide Crown Counsel with further evidence which weakened the strength of the Crown's case against our client. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. F.M. and L.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday December 1, 2016

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction given the complainant's credibility issues and the police failure to obtain statements from a number of independent witnesses.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the charges against both of our clients prior to trial. No criminal records.


R. vs. R.C. - Creston Provincial Court

Monday November 21, 2016

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether, given the rehabilitative steos our client had taken, it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve any charge whatsoever. No criminal record.


R. vs. S.V. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday November 17, 2016

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstance, self defence would lead to an aquittal.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. J. B. - Surrey Provincial Court

Wednesday November 16, 2016

Charge: Possession of Restricted Weapon; Smuggling.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, the Crown would seek a jail sentence.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed summarily and to jointly seek a fine rather than a jail sentence.

 


R. vs. J.F. - Surrey Provincial Court

Wednesday November 9, 2016

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm (domestic).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances and the rehabilitative steps our client took on his own initiative, it was still in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persude Crown Counsel to stay the charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. T. H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday November 2, 2016

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances that suggested our client was acting in self defence, there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel decided to not approve any charge in this case. No criminal record.


R. vs. L.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday October 25, 2016

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Crown to proceed with a criminal charge in the circumstances of our client intervening into an altercation between a nightclub doorman and a patron.
Result: Crown did not approve any charge upon our client successfully completing Alternative Measures. No criminal record.


R. vs. R.P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday October 24, 2016

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm
Issue: Given Mr. Johnson's successful application for disclosure of the complainant's social worker's records, whether there continued to be a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: The Crown entered a stay of proceedings on the eve of the scheduled ten day trial. No criminal record.


R. vs. W.C. - Surrey Provincial Court

Thursday September 22, 2016

Charge: Possession of Prohibited Weapon; Smuggling.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, the Crown would seek a jail sentence.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed summarily and to jointly seek a fine rather than a jail sentence.


R. vs. A.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday September 22, 2016

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson persuaded Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. B.L. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday September 8, 2016

Charge: Criminal Harrassment.
Issue: Whether, given the rehabilitative steps our client took on his own initiative, there was a public interest in prosecuting the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel into proceeding by way of a "Peace Bond" and to stay the criminal charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. A.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday August 2, 2016

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was any public interest in proceeding with the charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program without approving any criminal charge. No criminal conviction.


R. vs. S.M. - Richmond Provincial Court

Thursday June 30, 2016

Charge: Aggravated Assault.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to jail.
Result: Rather than the jail sentence that Crown Counsel had originally sought, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of Assault Causing Bodily Harm and, after hearing our submissions, the court granted our client an 8 month conditional sentence to be served in the community. No jail.


R. vs. B.B. - Surrey Provincial Court

Friday June 17, 2016

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken on his own initiative, whether it ws in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able tp persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charge upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal conviction; no criminal record.

 


R. vs. Z.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday June 7, 2016

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken on his own initiative, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings.


R. vs. B. Y. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Sunday June 5, 2016

Charge: Assault; Transportation Fraud.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for convictions to be entered against our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to convince the Crown and the Court that because of the steps our client had taken with respect to rehabilitation, it was appropriate to grant a conditional discharge. No conviction.


R. vs. A.F. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday May 12, 2016

Charge: Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose.
Issue: Whether, given the background of our client and the circumstaces of the offence, it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the charge upon our client successfully completing Alternative Measures. No criminal record.


R. vs. M.M. - Burnaby RCMP investigation.

Saturday April 23, 2016

Charge: Assualt; Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether, given the statement of an independent witness, there would be a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: We were able to help locate an witness to the alleged offence who provided an explanation that led to police deciding to conclude their file without recommending any chargesl. No criminal record.


R. vs. G.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday April 19, 2016

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substanial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After considering the second statemnt of the complainant as well as Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel decided to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. L.A. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday April 13, 2016

Charge: Asssault with a Weapon; Poseession of a Controlled Substance.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction; whether there were lawful grounds to arrest our client.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submissions, the police report to Crown and a new statement from the complainant, Crown Counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. v. P.M. - Chilliwack Provincial Court

Thursday April 7, 2016

Charge: Assault (x2).
Issue: Whether our client was acting in self defence.
Result: Prior to the start of the second trial date, Crown entered a sty of proceedings. No criminal conviction.


R. vs. J.R. - Vancouver Police Investigation

Monday March 28, 2016

Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether the police had sufficient evidence to recommend a charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to successfully steer our client through the investigation. No charges recommended. No criminal record. 


R. vs. S.W - Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday February 22, 2016

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. C.V. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday December 15, 2015

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for our client to be sentenced to a conditional discharge in this "road rage" spitting case despite having received a prior conditional discharge.
Result: After considring the rehabilitative steps our client had taken and upon hearing Mr. Mines's submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge. No conviction.


R. vs. J.P. - Surrey Provincial Court

Friday November 27, 2015

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether, given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken on his own initiative, there was a public interest in proceeding with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charge upon our client entering into a "Peace Bond". No criminal record.


R. vs. A.S. - Vancouver Criminal Court

Thursday November 19, 2015

Charge: Breach of Conditional Sentence Order (from Aggravated Assault conviction).
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the Breach allegation, given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken on his own initiative.
Result: Rather than facing termination of our client's sentence of house arrest and the prospect of incarcaration for the balance of his sentence, Mr. Johmson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to withdraw the allegation of Breach. No jail.


R. vs. A.D. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday November 18, 2015

Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken on his own initiative, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceddings. No criminal record.


R. vs. S.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday October 8, 2015

Charge: Aggravated Assault.
Issue: Whether our client acted in self defence in causing life threatening injuries to the complainant.
Result: After a two day trial, the court agreed with Mr. Johnson's submissions that our client was acting in self defence. Not guilty. No criminal record.


R. vs. M.O. - Surrey RCMP Investigation

Tuesday August 4, 2015

Charge: Administering a noxious substance; Assault.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient proof of the identity of the suspect.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investigation without any charges being recommended. No criminal record.


R. vs. K.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday July 29, 2015

Charge: Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable to believe that our client possessed the weapon to defend himself or his property.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown that, given the circumstances, it was not in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge. Upon completing Alternative Measures, Crown Counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. T.Z. - Richmond Provincial Court

Tuesday June 30, 2015

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the  criminal charge.
Result: Based on rehabilitative steps our client had taken on his own initiative, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to proceed on a s. 810 Recognizance ("Peace Bond"). No criminal Record.


R. vs. T.H. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday June 25, 2015

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charge upon our client enering into a peace bond. no criminal record.

 


R. vs. K.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday June 23, 2015

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to continue with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that our client was suitable for Alternative Measures. Upon completion of the program, Crown Counsel withdrew the charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. C.J. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday May 11, 2015

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Possession of  a Dangerous Weapon; Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove aggravating factors; whether the complainant had provoked our client to threaten him with a machete.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown to proceed only on the lesser offence of Uttering a Threat. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted our client a 30 day conditional sentence and 12 months probation, and not the jail sentence the Crown had originally sought.


R. vs. R.V. - Sechelt Provincial Court

Wednesday April 15, 2015

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was credible evidence that would amount to criminal conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown counsel concluded that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction and declined to approve any charge. No criminal record.


R. vs. A.H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday March 12, 2015

Charge: Assault with a Weapon (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown agreed that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. A.D. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday March 11, 2015

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Forcible Confinement.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown Counsel agreed that its case was weak and there was no substantial likelihood that our client would be convicted. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. R.S. - Vancouver provincial Court

Thursday February 5, 2015

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Based on the complainant's initial inconsistent statement, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to not proceed with the charge. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. D.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday December 18, 2014

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm (domestic).
Issue: Considering our client's past criminal record and the significant injury to the complainant, whether our client would be sentenced to the jail sentence  sought by Crown.
Result: After hearing Mr. Johnson's submissions, the trial judge sentenced our client to 2 years probation with various conditions. No jail.


R. vs. B.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday December 4, 2014

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charges.
Result: Based on rehabilitative steps our client initiated, we were able to persuade Crown counsel to not approve any charge and to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program.


R. vs. R.C. - Surrey Provincial Court

Wednesday November 19, 2014

Charge: Assault (domestic) x2
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps taken by our client, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay both counts prior to trial. No criminal record.


R. vs. K.P. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday October 28, 2014

Charge: Assault; Breach of Undertaking (x2).
Issue: Whether our client was acting in self defence and whether the complainant induced the breaches.
Result: The trial judge dismissed all three charges. No criminal record.


R. vs. A.O. - Surrey Provincial Court

Friday October 3, 2014

Charge: Assault (spousal).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge considering the rehabilitative steps our client had taken.
Result: Mr. Johnson persuded Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. P.D. - Surrey Provincial Court

Friday September 26, 2014

Charge: Assault (Spousal).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Despite a child being present during the incident, we were able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed by way of a Peace Bond. Criminal charge dropped. No criminal record.


R. vs. E.N. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday September 18, 2014

Charge: Assault; Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: We were able to direct Crown counsel to important evidence that corroborated that our client was acting in self defence. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. M.W. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday August 25, 2014

Charge: Extortion.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to the nine month jail sentence sought by the Crown  for following through with his threat to publish pornographic images of the complainant to the internet.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge senenced our client to 60 days to be served intermittently on weekends.


R. vs. L.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday July 23, 2014

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Uttering a Threat (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay both charges. No criminal record.


R. vs. T.H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday July 22, 2014

Charge: Assault; Mischief (x2); participating in a Riot.
Issue: Whether our client would be sententeced to the 6 to 8 month jail sentence sought by the Crown.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel that our client's role in the Stanley Cup Riot did not include a serious assault. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court imposed a 75 day intermittent sentence.


R. vs. J.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday July 10, 2014

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Threatening (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay both charges. No criminal record.


R. vs. T.I. - Richmond Provincial Court

Friday June 27, 2014

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the criminal charge.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve any charge upon our client completing Alternative Measures. No criminal record.


R. vs. F.D. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday June 19, 2014

Charge: Aggravated Assault (reduced to Assault Causing Bodily Harm).
Issue: Whether the injury was serious enough to constitute the charged offence; whether the trial judge would follow the Crown's sentencing submissions.
Result: Rather than the 18 month jail sentence the Crown had originally sought, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the Court to sentence our client to 45 days in custody. 


R. vs. M.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday June 11, 2014

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Possessing a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose.
Issue: Whether, given our client's explanation of his actions, there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able provide the Crown with information that led Crown to stay both chrges prior to trial. No criminal record.


R. vs. J.M. - Surrey Provincial Court

Wednesday April 23, 2014

Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether, given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, was it in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel stay the charge upon our client entering into a Peace Bond.


R. vs. S.K. et al - Surrey Provincial Court

Friday April 4, 2014

Charge: Assault x3.
Issue: Given various conflicting accounts of the incident, whether there was a substantial likelihood of criminal convictions.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay all charges upon our clients entering into Peace Bonds. No criminal records.


R. vs. D.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday March 13, 2014

Charge: Assault (Domestic).

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Based on the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, we were able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.


R. vs. G.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday January 9, 2014

Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.


R. vs. A.O. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday December 19, 2013

Charge: Assault.

Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interst to proceed with the criminal charge.

Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a complete stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. L.H. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday December 16, 2013

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken and given the support of the complainant, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial commencing. No criminal record.


R. vs. D.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday December 9, 2013

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Despite the seriousness of the asault, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to stay the criminal charge upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.


R. vs. J.L. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday December 5, 2013

Charge: Assault; Threatening.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.T.   - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 21, 2013

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program. Upon completion, Crown stayed the charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. L.G.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

November 19, 2013

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial liklihood of a conviction.
Result: Notwithstanding the serious injuries sufferd by the complainant, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown that our client used reasonable force in the circumstances. Complete stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. K. P.  - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 15, 2013

Charges:Threatening; Obstruct Police Officer.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to provide Crown with information of our client's mental health problems. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.H.  -  Duncan Provincial Court

November 14, 2013

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that the incident caused a long term brain injury to the complainant.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to abandon trying to prove the aggravating facts.
After hearing our submissions, the trial judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

 

R. vs. V.L.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

November 1, 2013.

Charge: Assault with a Weapon.  
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence and the rehabilitative steps our client had  taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the judge granted our client an Absolute Discharge.

R. vs. B.T.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

October 31, 2013
 
Charge: Assault causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program. No crominal record.

 

R. vs. S.N.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

October 9, 2013
 
Charge: Uttering Threats; Mischief to Property.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to stay the criminal charges upon our client entering into a "Peace Bond". No criminal record.

 

R. vs. W.A.H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 1, 2013
 
Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the steps our client took with respect to counselling, whether it was in the public intersest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson persuaded Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to trial. No criminal record.

 

R. vs. V.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 18, 2013

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Relying on steps our client had taken on his own with respect to counselling, we were able to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. P.C. - Richmond Provincial Court

September 16, 2013

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a discharge for an assult that resulted in significant injuries.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the Court that provocation contributed to our client acting completely out of character. Conditional Discharge.

R. vs. J.M.  -  North Vancouver Provincial Court

August 20, 2013
 
Charges: Unlawful Storage of Firearms.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be sentenced to community work service.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court made a firearms prohibition order, allowing our client to make arrangements to sell the firearms. Conditional discharge. No community work service.
 

R. vs. D.T.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

August 2, 2013

Charges: Uttering a Threat; Criminal Harassment.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be convicted and whether it was necessary to order him to take counselling persuant to a Probation Order.
Result: The Court agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that our client need not report to Probation or be ordered to take counselling. Crown stayed the harassment charge. Conditional Discharge.

R. vs. T.M.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

July 23, 2013

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Crown to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on a s. 810 Recognizance ("Peace Bond"). No criminal record.

R. vs. C.B.   -  Vancouver Provincial Court

July 19, 2013

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Crown to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Based on rehabilitative steps his client had completed, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to stay the charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.B.  -   Vancouver Provincial Court

June 6, 2013

Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to stay the criminal charge upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.C.   -  Vancouver Provincial Court

May 21, 2013

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue:
Whether the evidence would result in a conviction.
Result: After the complainant clarified her evidence, we were able to persuade Crown counsel to not approve any charge nor seek a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

 

R. vs. Y.W.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

May 8, 2013

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to stay the criminal charge upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.B.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

April 25, 2013

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the charge after the complainant provided additional information, clarifying her original statement.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to call no evidence and to invite the trial judge to dismiss the charge. No criminal record.

R. vs M.K.  - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 16, 2013

Charge: Assault with a Weapon (domestic).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was acting in self defence when she assaulted her boyfriend with a knife.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to direct the Crown to evidence which caused the prosecutor to re-evaluate the case. Charges withdrawn. No criminal record.

R. vs. E.S.A.  -  Richmond Provincial Court

April 15, 2013

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm
Issue: Whether witnesses would be able to properly identify Mr. Mines' client as the attacker.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown to not proceed on the criminal charge upon Mr.mines' client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. P.K.  -  North Vancouver Provincial Court

March 26, 2013

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was necessary, in the circumstances, to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings upon our client completing Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.M.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

March 25, 2013

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client, who had taken rehabilatative steps on his own after slapping his child, to be granted a discharge.
Result: After hearing our submissions, the court granted an Absolute Discharge. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.C.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

March 4, 2013

Charges: Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether there was an "air of reality" to Mr. Mines' client having lawful authority to deploy pepper spray on the complainant.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to not proceed with criminal charges upon his client entering into a s.810 Recognizance ("Peace Bond").  Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.T.  -   Vancouver Provincial Court

March 1, 2013

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: After persuading Crown to remove the "no contact" conditions, Crown directed a stay of proceedings when the complainant failed to attend at trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.W.  -  Surrey Provincial Court

March 27, 2013

Charge: Uttering a Threat
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client, who had taken rehabilitative steps on his own, to receive a conviction.
Result: After hearing our submissions, the court granted a conditional discharge.

 

R. vs. D.H.  -  Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

February 18, 2013

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client used minimal force to defend himself and his property.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to invite the trial judge to dismiss the charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.D.  -  North Vancouver Provincial Court

February 6, 2012

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction in this "road rage" case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown that the complainant's actions were a contributing factor. Crown entered a stay of proceedings upon Mr. Mines' client completing Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.K.  -  Surrey Provincial Court

January 9, 2012

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the identity of the attacker.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown that they would not succeed in proving that his client was the person responsible for breaking the complainant's nose. Stay of Proceedings prior to trial.

R. vs. R.P.  -  Sechelt RCMP Investigation

January 4, 2013

Charges: Assault.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client had the necessary intent to be convicted of a criminal offence.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade the investigating officer and Crown that his client did not commit an assault but was, rather, acting reasonably to prevent the intoxicated complainant from driving a vehicle. No charge approved.

R. vs. M.H.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

December 20, 2012

Charges: Assault; Unlawful Confinement.
Issue: Whether the complainant's credibility was strong enough to support a criminal conviction.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to point out various inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, resulting in the Crown agreeing to stay the charges and to proceed by way of a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.S.  -  North Vancouver Provincial Court

December 13, 2012

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown counsel to allow his client to enter into a Peace Bond. The criminal charge was stayed. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.V.  -  New Westminster Provincial Court

October 29, 2012

Charge: Assault
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

 

R. vs. S.N.  -  North Vancouver Provincial Court

October 16, 2012

Charges: Assault; Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown to allow his client into the Alternative Measures program and persuaded the Court to dismiss both charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.V.  -  Richmond Provincial Court

September 26, 2012

Charges: Assault (x2); Threatening (domestic).
Issue: Whether the Crown's witness testified in a credible and reliable manner.
Result: After Mr. Mines' thorough cross examination of the complainant, the trial judge dismissed all charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.G.  -  North Vancouver Youth Justice Court

September 18, 2012

Charges: Aggravated Assault; Assault with a Weapon (x2).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client's Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was breached.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mansoori-Dara's submissions that the 22 monthe delay was unreasonable, the trial judge entered a judicial stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. P.R.  -  New Westminster Provincial Court

August 28, 2012

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interset to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed by way of a s. 810 "Peace Bond" instead of the criminal charge. No criminal record.

 

R. vs. C.S.   -   Vancouver Provincial Court

June 29,2012

Charges: Assault (x3), Unsafe Storage of Firearms (x3).
Issue: Whether the assault charges were provable; whether the search that located the firearms was lawful.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown to stay all firearms charges because the police search was unlawful. After hearing Mr. Mansoori-Dara's submissions on one of the assault charges, the Court granted his client a 6 month Conditional Discharge, and Crown stayed the remaining two assault charges. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. A.A.  -  North Vancouver Provincial Court

June 22, 2012

Charges: Criminal Harassment.
Issue: Whether Crown counsel had proved that the actions and words of Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client amounted to criminal conduct.
Result: After a 3 day trial the Court agreed with Mr. Mansoori-Dara's submissions that the conduct fell short of criminal behavior. Not guilty.

R. vs. S.N.  - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 7, 2012

Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a criminal conviction.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown counsel to  stay proceedings upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. P.L.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

May 3, 2012

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. S.W  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

April 26, 2012

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara presented Crown counsel with additional evidence which resulted in Crown deciding to enter a complete stay of proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.H.  -  North Vancouver Provincial Court

April 17, 2012

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm (domestic).
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove bodily harm.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of simple assault. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted his client a conditional discharge. No conviction.

R. vs. B.M. -  Vancouver Provincial Court

April 13, 2012

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charge upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. J.T.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

April 12, 2012

Charges: Extortion (x4); Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mansoori-Dara's representations with repect to the credibility of the complainants, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.A.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

April 2, 2012

Charge: Criminal Harassment.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: The Crown had originally sought a jail sentence, however Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to stay the criminal charge upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. V.T.  -  Richmond Provincial Court

March 27, 2012

Charges: Extortion.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the Extortion offence.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the Extortion charge and to proceed on the lesser offence of criminal harassment.  Crown originally sought a significant jail sentence, but agreed to make a joint submission for a conditional discharge. No jail. No conviction.

R. vs. S.N.K.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

February 15, 2012

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest for Mr. Mines' client to receive a conditional discharge.
Result: Though the Crown sought a jail sentence due to the degree of injury sustained by the complainant, the Court, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, granted a conditional discharge.

R. vs. A.A.  -  North Vancouver Provincial Court

February 14, 2012

Charges: Criminal Harassment; Threatening.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the criminal charges.
Result: Despite his client having a prior related record, Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charges upon his client entering into a Peace Bond.

 

R. vs. E.B.  -  Richmond Provincial Court

January 31, 2012

Charge: Assault Police Officer.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest for Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mansoori-Dara's submissions, the court granted his client a conditional discharge. No conviction.

R. vs. H.B.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

January 3, 2012

Charges: Assault x2; Unlawful Confinement.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove the confinement charge and whether it was in the public interest for Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client to be granted a discharge.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the confinement charge and one of the assault charges. After hearing Mr. Manoori-Dara's submissions, the Court granted his client a conditional discharge. No conviction.

R. vs. S.D.  -  Richmond Provincial Court

December 14, 2011

Charge: Assault Police Officer.
Issue: Whether the officer executed a lawful arrest and whether Mr. Mines' client was justified in using force against the officer.
Result: At the conclusion of a two day trial,  Mr. Mines persuaded the  judge that his client was justified in assaulting the police officer that had unlawfully arrested him. Not Guilty. No criminal record.

 

R. vs. L.B.  -  Surrey Provincial Court

December 7, 2011

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction, given new information provided to the Crown.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to resolve the matter by staying the criminal charge upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

 

R. vs. S.T.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

December 2, 2011

Charges: Assault; Utterining Threats (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interst to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charges upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs L.H.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

November 10, 2011

Charge: Assault (Domestic).
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for Mr.Mines' client to be sentenced to  jail.
Result: Emphasizing the steps his client had taken to rehabilitate himself, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to reconsider its position and, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted his client a suspended sentence.

 

R. vs. L.Z.  -  New Westminster Provincial Court

October 31, 2011

Charge: Assault (Domestic).
Issue: Whether, given further information provided by the complainant, there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.W.  -  North Vancouver Criminal Court

October 6, 2011

Charges: Assault with a Weapon (Domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to direct Crown Counsel to further information which resulted in Crown entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

 

R. vs. L.T.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

September 27, 2011

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm; Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges given the apparent lack of intent Mr. Mines' client had to cause bodily harm.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to stay charges upon his client completing  Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. W.L.  -  Vancouver Provicial Court

September 21, 2011

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm; Assaulting a Police Officer.
Issue: Whether Crown would be able tp prove that Mr. Mines' client, and not the co-accused, that caused injury to the complainant. Further, whether Mr. Mines' client actually assaulted the arresting officer or not.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to proceed on the lesser charges of simple Assault and Causing a Disturbance. The Crown had originally sought a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted his client a Conditional Discharge. No conviction.

 

R. vs. T.S.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

September 15, 2011

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose.
Issue: Whether, based on the circumstances of an intoxicated person brandishing a pocket knife to a nightclub doorman after being forcibly ejected from the club, it was appropriate to proceed on the charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of Causing a Disturbance and, after hearing his submissions, the court granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. T.T.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

September 6, 2011

Charge: Section 810 Recognizance (Peace Bond).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of the Crown proving that the complainant had reason to fear for her safety as a result of the alleged incident.
Result: Based on extra-judicial steps taken by his client, Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown to enter a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record. No Peace Bond.

 

R. vs. C.A.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

August 16, 2011

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations and clarification from the complainant, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

 

R. vs. S.P.  -  Vancouver Provincial Court

July 29, 2011

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether Crown had disclosed relevant witness statements in a timely manner prior to the trial.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown Counsel that his client's right to a fair trial was breached. Crown entered a Stay of Proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.P.  -  North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 21, 2011

Charge: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was necessary for the Crown to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow his client to enter into a Peace Bond with a "no contact" condition. No criminal record.

R. vs. L.M.  -  North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 13, 2011

Charges: Assault (x2); Unlawfully in a Dwelling.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges, given Mr. Mines' client's limited role in the alleged offences.
Result: The Crown Counsel had been seeking a 3-6 month jail sentence.  However, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown  to call no evidence against his client. All charges dismissed. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.N. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

June 07, 2011

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction.
Result: After considering the complainant's clarifications and Mr. Mines' representations on his client's behalf, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.R. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

May 19, 2011

Charge: Criminal Harassment; Uttering Threats; Breach of Bail.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client's behavior amounted to criminal harassment and whether the Crown could prove that the Breach was intentional.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown to proceed only on the Threatening charge. After hearing his submissions, the Court granted Mr. Manoori-Dara's client a Conditional Discharge. All other charges dropped.

R. vs. J.L. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

April 27, 2011

Charge: Pointing a Firearm; Uttering threats.
Issue: Whether the court would have accepted Mr. Mines'client's explanation of the incident.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser related offence of Unlawful Storage of a Firearm. All other charges (which carried a one year minimum jail sentence) dropped. After hearing his submissions, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines client a Conditional Discharge.

R. vs. D.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 21, 2011

Charge: Assault (x3).
Issue: To what degree did bias against sexual orientation factor into the circumstances of this case?
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate an Agreed Statement of Facts where his client pleaded guilty to a single charge and, after hearing submissions on his client's behalf, the judge granted Mr. Mines' client a suspended sentence with 12 months probation.

R. vs. J.C. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

April 21, 2011

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm; Threatening; Possession of a Weapon.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interest for Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client to be convicted of any criminal offences.
Result: Mr. Mansoori- Dara persuaded Crown Counsel to drop the Assault Causing Bodily Harm charge and, after hearing submissions, the court granted his client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal record.

R. vs. A. C. - Vancouver Youth Court

March 10, 2011

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, a criminal conviction was appropriate.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the court granted Mr. Mines' client a conditional discharge.

R. vs. R.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 25, 2011

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm; Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether there was consent to the fight and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel into allowing his client into the Alternative Measures Program and to stay the criminal charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. H.E.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

January 20, 2011

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge in this domestic assault case.
Result: After Mr. Mines' client completed an anger management course and with the complainant's input, Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.W. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

November 01, 2010

Charge: Assault; Mischief.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: After hearing that the complainant had no interest in the matter proceeding and hearing Mr. Mines' representations on behalf of his client, Crown Counsel enter a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. J. C. - Richmond Provincial Court

August 20, 2010

Charge: Assault (domestic) x2.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charges.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations and obtaining new information, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

August 18, 2010

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

August 18, 2010

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. E. S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

August 11, 2010

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: After considering the evidence and Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings at the first court appearance. No criminal record.

R. vs. R. L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 04, 2010

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution in this case.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, the Crown called no evidence and the charge was dismissed. No criminal record.

R. vs. S. R. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 19, 2010

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of common assault and to make a joint submission for a Conditional Discharge, which was accepted by the court. No criminal conviction. No jail.

R. vs. E.Z. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 15, 2010

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations on his client's behalf, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.B. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 14, 2010

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail.
Result: Crown Counsel was seeking a jail sentence, but Mr. Mines was able to persuade the Crown to make a joint submission for a 4 month Conditional Sentence on a plea to the lesser offence of common assault. The plea was accepted by the court; no jail.

R. vs. A.R. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 10, 2010

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel elected to call no evidence. Charge dismissed. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.S.B. - Surrey Provincial Court

May 12, 2010

Charge: Forcible Entry; Assault with a Weapon (x2).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charges in this domestic violence case.
Result: Given the steps Mr.Mines' client had taken to rehabilitate himself, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings prior to the trial date. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 12, 2010

Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: The Crown had originally sought a jail sentence but Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to Stay the Proceedings upon his client entering into a "Peace Bond". No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 01, 2010

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' representations on his client's behalf, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.Y. - Victoria Provincial Court

January 15, 2010

Charge: Criminal Harrassment; Threatening x2.
Issue: Whether the Crown had a reasonable likelihood of obtaining a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines' client pleaded not guilty, the Crown called no evidence, and the trial judge found Mr.Mines' client not guilty.The judge dismissed all 3 criminal charges and placed Mr. Mines' client on a common law Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.A. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

January 06, 2010

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction.
Result: On the trial date Crown Counsel, after hearing Mr. Mines' representations, agreed to proceed by way of a s. 810 Recognizance ("Peace Bond"). No criminal record.

R. vs. M.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 11, 2009

Charge: Criminal Harassment
Issue: Whether, given the nature of the alleged harassment and the apparent consent of the complainant, there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings prior to setting the matter down for trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. A. P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 13, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest for the matter to proceed.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the case being set for trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.O. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

November 10, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to enter a conviction against Mr. Mines' client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge to grant his client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. C.G. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

October 29, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to receive a criminal conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the judge that, even though his client had assaulted an on duty taxi driver, it would not be contrary to the public interest to grant him a Conditional Discharge. No conviction entered.

R. vs. J.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 21, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, there was a reasonable prospect of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not proceed with the charge. Stay of Proceedings prior to the trial date. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.I. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

September 08, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, considering the strength of the Crown's case and the ability to locate an essential Crown witness, it was in the public interest to proceed with the case.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown Counsel entered a stay of proceedings at the Trial Confirmation Hearing. No criminal record.

R. vs. D. N. - Williams Lake Provincial Court

August 31, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of a parent biting a child back after being bitten, it was appropriate for a criminal conviction to result.
Result: Conditional Discharge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge agreed that it was not necessary for the court to enter a conviction against Mr. Mines' client.

R. vs. A.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 13, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for the Crown to apply to adjourn the case in order to confirm the attendance of a crucial witness.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel that it was not in the public interest to proceed. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 23, 2009

Charge: Assault; Assault with Weapon.
Issue: Whether, given the nature of the relationship between the complainant and Mr. Mines' client, it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charges and allow his client to enter into a "Peace Bond". No criminal record.

R. vs. R.D. - Richmond Provincial Court

May 21, 2009

Charge: Assault Police Officer.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into Alternative Measures. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.P. - New Westminster Provincial Court

May 06, 2009

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for the Crown to apply for an adjournment in order to secure the attendance of a crucial witness.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to not apply for the Adjournment. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.N. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 25, 2009

Charge: Assault; Uttering a Threat; Failure to Appear.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Given the nature of the complaint and the circumstances of Mr Mines' client, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the proceedings on all charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 25, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove its case, given the lack of cooperation by the original complainant.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. G. S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 04, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings without having to set a trial date. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.A. - Richmond Provincial Court

February 19, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of an assault upon a transit operator, it was appropriate for the court to enter a conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted his client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal record.

R. vs. J. M. - Richmond Provincial Court

December 11, 2008

Charge: Causing a Disturbance; Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether in the circumstances, Mr. Mines' client's behaviour amounted to a criminal act.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines submissions on behalf of his client, Crown Counsel decided not to approve criminal charges. No record.

R. vs. I.D. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 20, 2008

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove the offences and whether it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be convicted.
Result: Midway through the trial, Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to proceed only on the lesser charge of common assault. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted Mr. Mines' client a Discharge.

R. vs. M. S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 31, 2008

Charge: Assault; Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with the charges.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions and interviewing the complainant, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

October 16, 2008

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to withdraw the criminal charge upon his client completing Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. W.W. - Surrey Provincial Court

October 10, 2008

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court placed Mr. Mines' client on a "Peace Bond" and Crown Counsel withdrew the criminal charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. C. M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 10, 2008

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions and interviewing the complainant, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 11, 2008

Charge: Assault x 2; Breach of Recognizance.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was involved in a consensual fight or acting in self defence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the judge granted his client a conditional Discharge on the Breach charge and dismissed both Assault charges.
No criminal record.

R. vs. J.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 13, 2008

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was acting in self defence when he punched a bus driver who was ejecting him from the bus.
Result: Not guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge agreed that Mr. Mines client was probably acting to defend himself and dismissed the charge.

R. vs. H. K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 11, 2008

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow his client to enter into a "Peace Bond" and to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 18, 2008

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Upon his client completing a course of anger management counselling sessions, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 03, 2008

Charge: Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to withdraw the criminal charge upon his client entering into a Peace Bond.

R. vs. R.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 04, 2008

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to withdraw the charge prior to trial.
No criminal record.

R. vs. R. R. - Vancouver Provincial Court

January 16, 2008

Charge: Assault / Breach of Recognizance x 2.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Mr. Mines' client to be convicted.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to withdraw the Assault charge and one of the Breach charges. The trial judge accepted Mr. Mines' submission that his client should be granted an Absolute Discharge.

R. vs. D.R. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

December 18, 2007

Charge: Assault; Obstruct Police.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client, an off duty police officer, committed offences when he helped pursue and arrest someone who had earlier assaulted him.
Result: After a 6 day trial Mr. Mines' client was found not guilty on the obstruct police charge and was granted a six month conditional discharge on the assault charge.

R. vs. M.Y. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 14, 2007

Charge: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of the allegations and the circumstances of Mr. Mines' client, it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to withdraw the charge before a trial date was set.

R. vs. P.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 04, 2007

Charge: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, the Crown could prove that the words amounted to a criminal offence.
Result: Crown Counsel withdrew the charge prior to the trial.

R. vs. B.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 16, 2007

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interest for the Crown to proceed.
Result: After Mr. Mines' client took alcohol counselling, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to withdraw the charge.

R. vs. T. M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 28, 2007

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the matter to proceed as a criminal charge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions Crown Counsel withdrew the criminal charge upon Mr. Mines's client entering into a "Peace Bond".

R. vs. J. P. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

August 20, 2007

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove the case.
Result: Crown Counsel withdrew the charge.

R. vs. H. R.M. - Richmond Provincial Court

August 14, 2007

Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest for the matter to proceed as a criminal charge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown Counsel withdrew the criminal charge upon Mr. Mines' client entering into a "Peace Bond".

R. vs. H.B.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 26, 2007

Charge: Failure to Comply with Probation Order (5 Counts).
Issue: Mr. Mines' client was alleged to have breached no contact orders with his former spouse on 4 occassions. Credibility of the witnesses was in issue.
Result: After considering the evidence and hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge found Mr. Mines' client not guilty on 4 of the 5 charges. He placed Mr. Mines' client on Probation. (the Crown had originally sought a jail sentence).

R. vs. G. M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 03, 2007

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether the Crown had a reasonable likelihood of conviction.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions and considering its position, Crown Counsel withdrew the charge prior to trial.

R. vs. J.M.M. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

January 02, 2007

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of the complainant's statement to police, there was a likelihood of conviction.
Result: After submissions to Crown by Mr. Mines the Crown withdrew the charge.

R. vs. D.H. - Vancouver Supreme Court

December 11, 2006

Charge: Aggravated Assault.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client, a pub doorman, acted in self defence in causing significant injuries to a patron during an altercation at the pub.
Result: Not Guilty. Mr. Mines' client acquitted of all charges, including lesser included offences of assault causing bodily harm and common assault. (6 day jury trial).

R. vs. L.V.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 26, 2006

Charge: Criminal Harassment.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown Counsel withdrew the criminal charge upon Mr.Mines' client entering into a "Peace Bond."

R. vs. T.E. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 26, 2006

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether in the circumstances of intervening in a fight between two children, Mr. Mines' client was guilty of assault.
Result: Charge withdrawn upon entering into a Peace Bond.

R. vs. W.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 25, 2006

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was acting in self defence.
Result: Not Guilty. The trial judge, after hearing Mr. Mines' client's explanation and accepting Mr. Mines' submission on self defence, dismissed the charge.

R. vs. C.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 10, 2006

Charge: Assault x2
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client, an off-duty security guard, was acting in defence of another person.
Result: Charges withdrawn by Crown Counsel after two days of trial. The evidence tended to establish Mr. Mines' argument that his client was protecting another person from assault.

R. vs. W.J. Richmond Provincial Court

April 25, 2006

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether the police had properly obtained witness statements alleging an assault.
Result: After Mr. Mines' consultations and negotiations with police and Crown Counsel, no charge was approved.

R. vs. L.R. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 23, 2006

Charge: Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was acting in self defence when she inflicted wounds to the arms of the complainant and damaged his jacket.
Result: Charges withdrawn by Crown on the trial date.

R. vs. J.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 08, 2005

Charge: Assault.
Issue: What sentence would be appropriate on a guilty plea?
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the judge granted Mr. Mines' client a discharge.

R. vs. B.G. - Surrey Provincial Court

August 19, 2005

Charge: Assault; Threatening; Unlawful Storage of Firearm.
Issue: Credibility of the complainant, lawfulness of the search of residence.
Result: After submissions to Crown by Mr. Mines, Crown withdrew all charges one week prior to trial.

R. vs. C.V. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 14, 2005

Charge: Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether Crown Counsel could prove the charge.
Result: Crown Counsel withdrew the charge on the trial date.

R. vs. W.D.H. - B.C. Court of Appeal

May 16, 2002

Charge: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had been properly convicted at trial.
Result: Conviction overturned on appeal. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge had misdirected himself with respect to the legal elements of uttering a threat.


R. vs. J.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Friday December 9, 2016

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether our client had a reasonable and honest belief that the complainant had consented to the sexual activity.
Result: On the fourth day of trial, after Mr. Johnson had vigorously cross examined the complainant, the Crown entered a stay of proceedings on the criminal charges and our client entered into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.


R. vs. K.G. - Vancouver Police Investigation

Tuesday August 23, 2016

Charge: Sex Assault.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to steer our client through the investigation which ended with police recommending no chargesl. No criminal record.


R. vs. N.D. - Vancouver Supreme Court

Thursday August 11, 2016

Charge: Sexual Assault; Break and Entering.
Issue: Whether, given the loss of crucial evidence by police, our client could receive a fair trial.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel that our client's right to a fair trial was breached. Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. R.K. - Surrey RCMP Investigation

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Charge: Possession of Child Pornography.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investigation which ended with police concluding that our client did not knowingly possess any illegal images. No charges recommended. No criminal record. All seized property was returned to our client.


R. vs. G.H. - Ridge Meadows RCMP Investigation

Friday July 29, 2016

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction with respect to this historical sex assault complaint.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investigation which concluded with police not recommending any charges. No criminal record.


R. v. I.N. - West Vancouver Police investigation.

Tuesday July 12, 2016

Charge: Sex Assault.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence against our client to recommend a charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to steer our client through the police investgation which concluded with no charges being recommended. No criminal record.


R. vs. V.C. - Surrey Provincial Court

Monday June 6, 2016

Charge: Sexual Interference; Sexual Assault.
Issue: In the circumstances of this historic "breach of trust" sexual interference against a minor, whether our client would be sentenced to jail.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown that there was strong proof of only one incident of sexual misconduct. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client a 12 month conditional sentence followed by 18 months probation.


R. vs. C.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday March 1, 2016

Charge: Sexual Assault; Unlawful Confinement.
Issue: Whether there was  a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: By obtaining further relevant evidence through several successful disclosure requests, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel that there were no longer sufficient grounds for a prosecution. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. N.D. - British Columbia Supreme Court

Tuesday March 1, 2016

Charge: Breach of Recognizance (x4) re: Sex Assault case.
Issue: Given potential defences raised by Mr. Johnson, whether it was in the public interest for Crown counsel to proceed.
Result: Just prior to the start of this three day Supreme Court trial, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter stays of proceeedings on all four charges. No criminal record.


R. vs. J.J. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday February 9, 2016

Charge: Voyeurism.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of the offence and the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was necessary for the Court to enter a conviction.
Result: Upon considering Mr. Johnson's submissions on our client's behalf, the Court granted our client a Conditional Discharge and placed him on probation.


R. vs. C.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday February 2, 2016

Charge: Sex Assault (investigation).
Issue: Whether Crown Counsel would approve charges against our client.
Result: We were able to steer our client through the investigation and ultimately persuaded Crown Counsel that, given the circumstances, there was no public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution. No charges approved. No criminal record.


R. vs. T.D. - Richmond Provincial Court

Wednesday September 23, 2015

Charge: Possession of Child Pornography.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client had knowledge of the images that were sent by email to his computer.
Result: After reviewing the evidence and considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel declined to approve any charge in this matter. No criminal record.


R. vs. M.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday May 5, 2015

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity in question.
Result: On the eve of a 10 day trial, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel that there was no substantial lilelihood of conviction. In the circumstances Crown entered a stay of proceedings upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.


R. vs. B.B. - Richmond Provincial Court

Thursday April 23, 2015

Charge: Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.
Result: Upon completion of a 5 day trial, the trial judge agreed with our submissions that the Crown failed to prove its case. Not guilty. No criminal record.


R. vs. M.B. - Surrey RCMP Investigation

Wednesday April 1, 2015

Charge: Posession of Child Pornography; Luring a Child.
Issue: Even though police concluded that no charges would be forwarded to Crown counsel, our client remained classified as a "suspect" and the incident was therefore viewable as a Police Information Record. 
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade police that our client was not, in law, chargeable with an offence. In the result, the record was made non disclosable. No police record.


R. vs. Y.C. - Richmond Provincial Court

Wednesday November 26, 2014

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether key evidence would be admissible at trial due to police breaching our client's Charter rights.
Result: Prior to the start of a 15 day trial, we were able to persuade Crown Counsel to drop the sex assault charge and to proceed on the much less serious offence of voyeurism. Rather than facing a lengthy jail sentence and a deportation order, our client was granted a three month Conditional Sentence and probation. No jail or deportation order.


R. vs. B.F. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday October 27, 2014

Charge: Sexual Assault; Assault; Threatening.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: As a result of new information we provided, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter stays of proceedings on all charges. No criminal record.


R. vs. D.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Tuesday August 12, 2014

Charge: Sex Assault; Uttering Threats (x2).
Issue: Whether, given the information we urged Crown to consider, it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay both criminal charges upon our client entering into a s. 810 "Peace Bond". No criminal record.
             


R. vs. J.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday June 12, 2014

Charge: Commit Indecent Act.
Issue: Whether our client had the necessary criminal intent for the offence and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to drop the criminal charge upon our client entering into a "Peace Bond". No criminal record.


R. vs. S.T. - Cranbrook RCMP Investigation

Monday May 5, 2014

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that the complainant did not give consent.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the investigation and conclude the matter by persuading Crown that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. No charge approved. No criminal record.


R. vs. G.G. - Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Friday April 4, 2014

Charges: Sexual Interference; Sex Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: We were able to successfully steer our client through the police investigation. Ultimately Crown Counsel declined to approve any charge.


R. vs. A.S. - Coquitlam RCMP Investigation

Tuesday February 4, 2014

Charge: Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: We were able to successfully steer our client through the investigation. No charges recommended.


R. vs. S.Y. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Thursday May 9, 2013

Charge: Sex Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge, given that our client mistook social cues and touched the complainant's breast without her consent.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve any charge upon our client successfully completing Alternative Measures. No criminal record.


R. vs. G.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Friday January 4, 2013

Charge: Commit an Indecent Act.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client had the necessary level of intent to be convicted of the offence.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of Causing a Public Disturbance. The Court granted a suspended sentence with 3 months probation.


R. vs. A.K. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday December 5, 2012

Charges: Sex Assault
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that the assault was for a sexual purpose.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade the Crown that his client did not have the necessary level of intent to be guilty of a criminal offence. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. P.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday March 26, 2012

Charges: Sex Assault; Assault.
Issue: Whether Crown would be able to prove that there was no consent given, resulting in a conviction for sex assault.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to stay the sex assault charge and proceed only on the lesser charge of common assault. The Crown originally sought a significant jail sentence, but agreed to a joint submission of one day (less time served) and probation.


R. vs. G.L. - RCMP Investigation

Tuesday January 24, 2012

Charges: Importing Child Pornography.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had knowledge of the material found by customs officers on a computer hard drive that he brought into Canada.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through the investigation with no charge being recommended by police.

R. vs. J.B.  -  Surrey RCMP Investigation

August 17, 2011

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether the complainant had consented to the sexual act.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through the police investigation which concluded with no criminal charge being recommended to Crown Counsel.

R. vs. B.B. - Vancouver Police

June 10, 2011

Charge: Sex Assault; Sexual Interference
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the identity of the perpetrator of a sexual assault.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to guide his client through the police investigation which, in the result, ended with Crown Counsel concluding the file with no charges being approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.J. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 07, 2011

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for Mr. Mines' client to have believed that the complainant had consented to the sexual act.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations on behalf of his client, the Crown agreed to proceed by way of a Peace Bond and to stay the criminal charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.B. - Abbotsford Provincial Court

February 01, 2011

Charge: Sexual Interference (x3).
Issue: Whether, given the historical nature of the offence and the circumstances of Mr. Mines' client, it was necessary for the Crown and court to consider a jail sentence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a suspended sentence and placed him on probation for 15 months. Crown Counsel stayed two of the charges.

R. vs. B. T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 20, 2010

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to release Mr. Mines' client from custody.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the Provincial Court Judge to release his client on surety bail.

R. vs. D. N. - Williams Lake Provincial Court

June 16, 2010

Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Given the circumstances, what was the appropriate sentence for Mr. Mines' client who had a sexual relationship with a minor.
Result: The Crown had sought a sentence of one year jail. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the trial judge agreed that a three month intermittent sentence was appropriate, allowing Mr. Mines' client to maintain his employment.

R. vs. M.T. - New Westminster Provincial Court

February 17, 2010

Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail in this breach of trust situation.
Result: Crown Counsel sought a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on the Sex Assault charge, the trial judge granted Mr Mines' client a six month Conditional Sentence, followed by probation. No jail.

R. vs. F.K.Y. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 04, 2009

Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: Upon considering Mr. Mines' representations and considering the strength of its case, Crown Counsel decided to enter a Stay of Proceedings prior to the trial date. No criminal record.

R. vs. D. C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 26, 2009

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest and whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the criminal charge upon his client entering into a s.810 Recognizance ("Peace Bond"). No criminal record.

R. vs. H. H. - Surrey Provincial Court

September 04, 2009

Charge: Importing Obscene Material into Canada; Possession of Child Pornography.
Issue: Whether, pending the investigation, it was appropriate for police to return Mr. Mines' client's seized passport to him.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade police to return his client's passport.

R. vs. T.A. - Vancouver Police Investigation

August 26, 2009

Charge: Internet Luring.
Issue: Whether the police investigator had sufficient evidence to recommend a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide the investigator with information on his client's behalf which resulted in no criminal charge being approved.

R. vs. M.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 16, 2009

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether police would recommend that charges be approved.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through a police investigation, which ultimately resulted in no charges being laid. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

January 07, 2009

Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations and the lack of any corroborating forensic evidence, Crown Cousel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 16, 2009

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether police would recommend that charges be approved.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through a police investigation which ultimately resulted in no charges being laid. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

January 07, 2009

Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations and the lack of any corroborating forensic evidence, Crown Cousel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.S. - Richmond Provincial Court

July 11, 2008

Charge: Possession of Child Pornography; Importing Obscene Material.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had knowledge of the contents of DVDs that he purchased in China and brought into Canada.
Result: After making submissions to police, Canada Border Service investigators and Crown Counsel, Mr. Mines' client was not charged with any criminal or Customs Act offence. No record.

R. vs. J.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 02, 2008

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After interviewing witnesses and considering Mr. Mines' submissions on behalf of his client, Crown Counsel entered a stay of proceedings prior to the Preliminary Inquiry.

R. vs. A.C. - Surrey Provincial Court

September 20, 2007

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, the Crown would be able to prove the charge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown withdrew the criminal charge upon Mr. Mines' client entering into a Peace Bond.

R. vs. M.I. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 01, 2006

Charge: Communicating for Prostitution.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of Mr. Mines' client, it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown Counsel withdrew the charge.

R. vs. S.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 15, 2005

Charge: Communicating for Prostitution.
Issue: On a guilty plea, whether it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to receive a conviction.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the judge granted Mr. Mines' client a discharge.

R. vs. S.D. - Vancouver Police Investigation

June 07, 2005

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether police would recommend charges to Crown Counsel.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the police decide not to forward charges.


R. vs. C.C. Youth Justice Court of BC

Monday June 6, 2016

Charge: Robbery with an Imitation Firearm.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that our client was a party to the robbery and weapons offences.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that our client had no knowledge of his co-accused's actions. Crown proceeded on the lesser offence of Assault Causing Bodily Harm and, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court sentenced our client to a 12 month period of probation. No jail.


R. vs. K.I. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday January 6, 2016

Charge: Manslaughter.
Issue: Whether our client had the intent to cause death in this case which involved multiple blows to the head with a weapon.
Result: After working out an agreed statement of facts with Crown, Mr. Mines was able to make submissions to the Court that resulted in a sentence of 5.5 years in addition to the one year already served.


R. vs. T.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Friday January 24, 2014

Charge: Arson
Issue: Whether our client had the necessary mental capacity to be convicted of a criminal offence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Johnson's submissions, the trial judge found that our client was Not Criminally Responsible on account of a Mental Disorder. No criminal record.


R. vs. P.L. - PortCoquitlam Provincial Court

Monday June 3, 2013

Charges: Fraud Over $5000 (x14).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to the 24 - 30 month jail sentence soght by the Crown in this large scale ($270,000) employee fraud case.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted his client a 2 year conditional sentence. No jail.


R. vs. T.G. - North Vancouver Youth Justice Court

Tuesday September 18, 2012

Charges: Aggravated Assault; Assault with a Weapon (x2).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client's Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mansoori-Dara's submissions that the 22 month delay was unreasonable, the trial judge entered a judicial stay of proceedings. No criminal record.


R. vs. L.B. Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday May 23, 2012

Charges: Possession/Unlawful Storage of Prohibited/Unregistered Firearms (x8).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client's Charter rights were violated during the search of her home. His client was facing a mandatory minimum three year jail sentence.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown that the search was unlawful and to stay all charges. No jail. No criminal record.


R. vs. S.H. - New Westminster Supreme Court

Friday May 18, 2012

Charge: Robbery.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client's Charter rights were breached due to an unreasonable delay in bringing the case to trial. Crown was seeking a one year jail term.
Result: Upon receiving Mr. Mansoori-Dara's written submissions, Crown entered a stay of proceedings prior to starting the scheduled 5 day trial. No criminal record.


R. vs. L.W. - PortCoquitlam Provincial Court

Monday September 26, 2011

Charges: Robbery; Unlawful Confinement; Extortion; Theft.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown to enter a complete Stay of Proceedings on all charges prior to the preliminary inquiry commencing. No criminal record.


R. vs. M.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Monday August 8, 2011

Charge: Robbery with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether, given Mr. Mines' client's mental health issues, it was appropriate to proceed with the robbery prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser related charge of common assault. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted a Conditional Discharge that focussed on rehabilitation. No jail.


R. vs. M.N. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Wednesday January 5, 2011

Charge: Aggravated Assault.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was suffering from a mental disorder at the time she stabbed her brother causing life threatening injuries.
Result: Mr. Mines and Crown Counsel presented expert psychiatric opinion evidence which was accepted by the court. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the trial judge found that his client was Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder. No criminal record.

R. vs. J. W. L. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

July 12, 2010

Charge: Aggravated Assault; Assault with a Weapon (x2).
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be released on bail.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the judge released Mr. Mines' client on surety bail.

R. vs. S.L. - Vancouver Supreme Court

March 19, 2010

Charge: Attempted Murder; Aggravated Sex Assault.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was suffering from a mental disorder.
Result: After a five week Supreme Court trial, the judge accepted Mr. Mines' submissions and found his client Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder.

R. vs. W.S. - Richmond Provincial Court

January 04, 2010

Charge: Kidnapping; Unlawful Confinement.
Issue: What the appropriate sentence would be in the circumstances. The Crown sought a 2.5 - 3 year Federal Penitentiary sentence.
Result: Mr. Mines negotiated a disposition agreement with Crown Counsel. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the trial judge imposed a 9 month Provincial sentence. No probation.

R. vs. M.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 19, 2007

Charge: Create Terrorism Hoax; Public Mischief.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of the offence, it would be appropriate for the Court to convict Mr. Mines' client.
Result: After lengthy submissions to Crown Counsel by Mr. Mines, Crown agreed to proceed on the lesser charge of Public Mischief. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted his client a Discharge.

R. vs. D.D. et al - Vancouver Supreme Court

February 25, 2006

Charge: Kidnapping; Assault with Weapon.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove the identity and the intentions of Mr. Mines' client.
Result: Not Guilty. Mr. Mines' client was acquitted of all charges (11 day jury trial).

R. vs. T.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 10, 2005

Charge: Robbery with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether the Crown had proved that Mr. Mines' client was, in fact, the robber.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on the "frailties of eyewitness identification," the trial judge dismissed the charge.

R. vs. L.I.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 09, 2005

Charge: Robbery.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was a "party" to the offence.
Result: Not Guilty of robbery or any included offence.

R. vs. P.W. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

December 09, 2004

Charge: Assault (after investigation for Murder).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail in circumstances where the co-accused was charged with manslaughter.
Result: After receiving Mr. Mines' advice during the investigation stage, the accused was charged with assault. Upon Mr. Mines' client pleading guilty, to an after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge suspended sentence and placed Mr. Mines' client on probation.

R. vs. S.M. - Surrey Provincial Court

October 04, 2004

Charge: Importing Over $10,000 Currency into Canada.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client, a U.S. citizen, would be released from custody and whether he would face incarceration upon conviction for importing approximately $500,000 U.S. cash.
into Canada
Result: After obtaining his clients' release from custody, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to withdraw the criminal charge.

R. vs. R.A. North Vancouver Provincial Court

December 11, 2002

Charge: Manslaughter.
Issue: What sentence would be appropriate for Mr Mines' client who confessed to killing a Squamish lawyer five years earlier.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge sentenced Mr. Mines' client to five years jail.